Talk:Attributor
Why COI?
[edit]This article refers to WP:COI but fails to identify any e.g. WP:NPOV violations... WP:WHYCOI? -- samj inout 18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is the appearance of a conflict of interest. WP:COI simply states that individuals who are not independent of a company should not add content to articles about that company. Instead, suggestions for additions should be made on the Talk page. --Lexein (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
External links August 2011
[edit]The links section was tagged as a problem in June 2010, so I've moved all external links (EL) here. Please read WP:EL. EL sections are not repositories of miscellaneous links, nor parking for sources which could be used to support content in the article. Usable links should be used as inline references, and not just parked.
 | This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (June 2010) |
- AP licenses a Content "Radar" System
- LA Times opinion: Harry Potter Spoiler Count
- Reuters: Attributor to help Reuters track digital content
- New York Times: Publishers See a Way to Track Their Content Across the Net
- TechCrunch: Attributor Launches Service to Track Copyright Infringement Across the Web
- Attributor.com Blog: The Untapped Potential of Celebrity Images
- VentureBeat: Associated Content Signs Up with Attributor
- TechCrunch: CondéNet Approaches Infringement as a Business Opportunity
- Journalism.co.uk: Reuters web content tracking deal reveals thirst for 'infotainment' stories
- Video Interview describing how the service works
- Google Now Controls 69% of Online Advertising Markets
- Attributor Secures $12 Million in Series C Financing
- BusinessWeek: Big Media is Watching
- Huffington Post: McCain's Internet Muscle Revealed In New Study
- Attribotor.com: Attributor adds world's 3rd largest news agency and supports five new languages
- Attribotor.com: Attributor Quantifies Monetary Value of Off-Site Content Viewership Across the Web.
- Ad-Revenue Sharing Model For Publishers Emerges In 2009
- LA Times blog: Attributor and Creative Commons go public with FairShare
- Lawrence Lessig: FairShare launches
- Closing the Online Revenue Gap
- ContentBridges.com: Attributor "Fair Syndication Consortium" Completes Newspaper Trifecta
- WSJ: Startup Tries to Rally Publishers with Ad-Sharing Proposal
--Lexein (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Request for Update from Digimarc
[edit] | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello. I work for Digimarc, which is the company that purchased Attributor in 2012. Would it be best to redirect this page to the Digimarc article page now? If so, I have also requested edits to the Digimarc page that discuss the acquisition of Attributor (now Digimarc Guardian) and those changes would need to be made before the redirection takes place.
Otherwise, it looks like this article needs a little love. There are several paragraphs without citations, and the last sentence ends abruptly without punctuation even. Five of those six should probably be removed due to the fact they are without citations and appear to be marketing-related.
It does seem logical to combine this content with the Digimarc page and expand the Products section of the Digimarc page (three main product lines: Digimarc Discover, Digimarc Guardian, Digimarc for Images). The Digimarc Guardian subsection could include a little bit of the Attributor history.
I will monitor this talk page. Please let me know of the best approach for moving forward and I would be happy to provide text within this space to use on the article. However, I also want to avoid a conflict of interest. Thank you! GeminiDrive (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the redirect, and will do that.
- I realize that "wipes out" some content, although it will be available in the history.
- Much of the material added was without citation. Given the acquisition of the company, I think the best course is to do the redirect, then continue on the talk page of Digimarc to determine, what, if any of the background of this company deserves to be in the other article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)