Talk:Digital Entertainment Network/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV check

I've requested a POV check. I'd say the general consensus of DEN in articles online has been rather negative. While I expected to see some references to their history in a more / less neutral way, I was really astonished to see phrases like "true internet pioneer". It smells like a marketing whitewash to me. Rogdor 05:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also added requests for citations on some of the claims. Overall this article is a mess, but I'm not requesting deletion because quite honestly I think it would just resurface as another whitewash. It needs serious cleanup, accuracy and representation of the actual news regarding this company. Rogdor 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article definetly needs a POV check. I think that a clean up tag may also be needed as the article is just one block of text and is also filled with grammatical errors. --Credema 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has been substantially changed since 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 22:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have added the clean-up tag to the article because it clearly does not meet Wikipedia quality standards. The article needs to be broken down it several different parts, as it is currently just one big block of text. The article is also written with poor grammar, and that must also be improved. Basically, the whole article must be greatly improved to meet Wikipedia quality standards. --Credema 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

oh my God

How can this be cleaned up? It should just be deleted. Why should anyone have to cope with such a mess? Sure, a new puff piece might pop up, but maybe the next one will at least employ paragraphs and be marginally easier to edit! Nuke it! Bacrito 16:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like trying to fix up this article is much more work then just scraping it and starting another one. The article is very poorly written and trying to fix it up is a hassle. --Credema 07:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think we just need to revert back to a version before Kosmos3d started adding stuff. There it appears greatly more neutral and seems to only list relevant stuff. In fact, it's a pretty good stub (though in need of wikification). What do you think? --Pekaje 22:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, before the edits by Kosmos3d the article was much better. I didn't notice that before, nice find. I think that we should revert it back to that version, as the edits by Kosmos3d were what 'destroyed' this article. --Credema 07:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

clearly your facts come from bias based on articles written by individuals/corporations with thier own agenda. the facts are within the changes that i made to this listing. i am not a writer and would appreciate help in making this sitation flow better. it shoud not be deleted because it is part of internet history. the article was extremely biased before i added the postivie aspects of the company. now it contains both positive and negative whichis closer to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.11.68 (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article after learning about the An Open Secret documentary. A decade after this conversation started, it's time for a clean up. I'll get to work on it right away. --Rburriel (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

New Radar Article

There's a new Radar article with more background and some updates to the DEN alumni. I've added it as a reference. I tried creating a Marc Collins-Rector page and adding some basic factural information but it was proposed for deletion and then deleted even with the HangOn tag literally within 3 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meehawl (talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me now that the whitewashing that this and other related entries has received is continuing and the latest tactic is to have pages removed based on "lacking notability" or via subtle vandalisms making cleanups difficult. The related material of the very notable websites Allahkhazam and Wowhead have now been deleted and the Thottbot page is now marked for deletion as well. The last standouts on Wikipedia really is this page and the IGE page and both seem under constant threat of whitewashing and/or deletion. These people have money and there's no doubt to me that they hire shills to try to better their much-tarnished image. Rogdor (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this the "Rector" mentioned in the first paragraph? If so, it should be explained as to who they are, because a general audience probably doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.106.169 (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Digital Entertainment Network

User:Tdenusa has sent me a message, indicating that he is not vandalizing the article, and that he has a "legal right" to post his advert information in the article.

I've replied, indicating that his information would be best served as a separate article, The Digital Entertainment Network, but also noted to him that his information would be subject to WP notability guidelines. --Mhking (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have now created the article on the alternate company with dab links between the two--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Trademarks

If there are no reliable secondary sources that comment on ownership of the trademark of Digital Entertainment Networks, then I think that information can be left out of the article. If http://www.tden.com can shown to be notable, it could have its own article without making any statement about who 'owns' the name. It is not up to us to peruse primary sources. A glance at tden.com suggests to me that notability is a stretch. The original DEN company got lots of press coverage due to the associated fiasco, but the second company is known for what exactly? EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created the article but agree notability might be an issue. I have requested citations for the trademark issue. It could be that the trademark issue give s notability (might be a stretch but I wouldn't maind waiting and seeing)--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal Experience

On a personal note, a classmate of mine worked at the DEN in the 1990's and I sat at what was probably a Pentium computer with another friend, trying to check it out. There were, as mentioned in the article, three download speeds 28K (or 33K, I can't remember), 56K, and ISDN. We had to use the slowest speed, because of the modem we were using and the experience was not good. The original shows had very low production value and were clearly aimed at a youth audience. It was a tiny, low resolution image and the stream stuttered a lot. It was an interesting experiment, but ahead of its time in a bad way. Very few people had a connection faster than 56K in those days, so I doubt the experience was much better for anyone else. My friend and I concluded that it was a gimmick and that the site wasn't going to take off. Media streaming is obviously better now, but still a frustrating experience at times. The DEN is worth a mention on the Streaming Media article, but doesn't merit its own article in my opinion.Spellmagi (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional references that someone may want to add

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-bryan-singer-hollywood-sex-abuse-20140422,0,2167755.story

Three Hollywood executives deny accusations of teen sex abuse

also:

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/1999-11-14/digital-entertainment-network-startup-or-non-starter

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/digital-entertainment-network

https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=ca&as_epq=Digital%20Entertainment%20Network&as_occt=any&as_qdr=a&authuser=0 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eastmain, the LA Times in particular was a gold mine of information. --Rburriel (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital Entertainment Network. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313054311/http://www.businessweek.com:80/1999/99_46/b3655182.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_46/b3655182.htm

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) 09:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1