Talk:Ustream

Chicon Hugo Awards

I deleted the section related to the Chicon Hugo awards, because it was all original research. I was going to give the author the benefit of the doubt, before I checked his personal page, which bragged: “On Sunday, September 2, 2012, almost immediately after Ustream cut off the live stream of the 2012 Hugo Awards Ceremony for "copyright infringement" (the Worldcon/Hugos of course had permission to use the "infringing" clips, all from nominees for the Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form), I added the "Controversy" section to the article.” He clearly did not take the time to fact-check or get sources. This smells like an attempt to manufacture controversy, not to document it.Kerfuffler (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've put it back, slightly modified, along with references. If you look at the history, there were already references added before you deleted it.DancingFool (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It still contains multiple unreferenced assertions. It also fails on neutrality. Furthermore, there is no evidence provided of any “controversy”—this is still a clear attempt to manufacture controversy rather than document it. Nor does something that affected 650 viewers qualify this to be elevated above other misfires of Vobile, none of which are mentioned here. I strongly suggest that if you want this sort of content, you work on a page about Vobile, and link it from this article. Kerfuffler (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, you're citing something specifically marked as a “RANT” as a reputable source? You've got to be kidding me. Kerfuffler (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding David Eppstein's addition, there are a few problems. First, he referenced a very short piece in The Register that uses as its source of information a blog post on io9.com labeled “RANT”, which contains much unverified guesswork. I do not believe this meets Wikipedia standards for a citation—it fits pretty much every criterion listed in the Wikipedia guidelines under “Questionable sources”, including conflict of interest (The Register has a very long history of extremist statements about the MPAA, RIAA, and copyright in general). It also makes at least two unsubstantiated claims, and arguably violates neutrality, when it says “angered many fans”. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Having added the section to begin with, I actually agree with how this was transformed. Admittedly, labeling it as "controversy" was giving in to sensationalism. However, I disagree with 2 of the points above in this discussion. First, I don't think "angered many fans" violates neutrality, and I'm sure an appropriate citation will soon be found that allows that to be referenced as a purely factual statement. Second, many more than about 650 viewers were inconvenienced by the cutoff. The UStream feed was used for the overflow room (those who could not get into the main ballroom where the Hugos were taking place) at Chicon itself. Chicon also had arrangements with DragonCon to provide a live feed of the ceremonies, which utilized the UStream feed as well. There were many people at DragonCon who were professionally or fannishly interested in the Hugo proceedings. Even if it was a distinct minority of DragonCon's attendees, I think it would be reasonable to say that it was several hundred people, given the probable attendance at DragonCon for 2012 (it had been 40,000 in 2010 and 46,000 in 2011). MarkVolundNYC (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, that's still basically all guesswork. Guesswork doesn't belong in Wikipedia. And as I wrote originally (see my first comment), you very obviously added the section with no fact-checking at all. Kerfuffler (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the source that I added and that Kerfuffler removed twice is Chirgwin, Richard (3 September 2012), "Sci-Fi fans blow stacks at copybot attacks: Huge Hugo streaming snafu", The Register. I disagree with this removal: first because, although it references the io9 post (which I agree is unreliable) there is no evidence that that is its sole source, and second because, although the Register piece is in part editorial, it was only being used to source factual claims that I think no reasonable person would dispute. Indeed, I think Kerfuffler is being ridiculous when he or she says that "angered many fans" is non-neutral: it is clear from the reaction on twitter etc that this really did anger many fans. I also think his or her placement of a "[citation needed]" tag on the description of the situation (including the interruption to Gaiman's speech, the angered fans etc) is ridiculous, because everything that was sourced to El Reg is also included in the TechCrunch source that I also added and that has not been removed. That includes the angry fans (or, "livid" as the quote in the TechCrunch piece puts it). By now there are also brief stories about this incident (not mentioning the fan reaction) in major mainstream newspapers The New York Times and The Guardian. Finally, this dispute over sourcing seems a bit odd as most of the article is far worse sourced (too much use of primary sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, David. Who quantifies “many” or “fans”? Vague usage like that is generally avoided on Wikipedia, because it can (and I argue in this case IS) misleading. As for my annoyance with this piece, like you, I only look at things that are brought to my attention (as you say on your talk page). Kerfuffler (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that "many angry fans" is a reasonable paraphrase of the phrase "a flood of livid Twitter messages" appearing in a direct quote from the Ustream CEO in the CNN article. As for what makes them fans, I think, by definition, anyone interested in an SF award show is a fan; note that fan here is a somewhat technical word referring to someone taking part in fannish activities (of which the Hugo awards are certainly one) rather than in its more informal usage of a booster of a sports team. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But a “many fans” would be understood by the average person to be a Big Deal. The vast majority of fans probably haven't even heard about this. If it were to rise to that level, then it really would be a controversy.

In any case, I've adjusted the wording to what I think is a reasonable depiction of the scenario. Can we put this to bed? Kerfuffler (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You adjusted the wording to take out any mention of the public reaction to this, and to replace wording that said that false positives have happened with weasel wording that only suggests that it could possibly happen. This is not acceptable. As for whether "it's a big deal", you seem to be injecting your personal judgement about magnitude into this, rather than going by the existence of this story in major news sources (NYT, Guardian, and now CNN). I think that their publishing it does make it a big deal. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's no more “weasel wording” than “has been known to” (unverified), especially given that it's followed immediately by an example! And “criticism over this blocking” is in fact stating a public reaction, but in a way that's not totally misleading, and is corroborated by the Ustream statement. To answer my question, apparently not—this is headed for dispute resolution very soon. Kerfuffler (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it unverified when this exact instance verifies it. And "criticism over this blocking" is so bloodless as to be misleading; it is very much not an accurate or neutral reworking of the "flood of livid messages" of the actual source. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Transforming “flood of livid messages” into “angered many fans” is also not accurate. We have no idea what “flood” means; it does not indicate a quantity, or how many people they came from. But in normal usage, “many” gives the impression that a large subset of “fans” (whatever that means) not only noticed the issue, but took umbrage with it—which is not supported by any facts or even the cited sources. This is a clear example of using terminology to inflate the statement, a.k.a. weasel wording. Kerfuffler (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As to your question, that is exactly my point. My usage of “can” is more succinct, more neutral, and is verified by the exact same example. Kerfuffler (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Can" to me implies "maybe hasn't actually done so", which in this case is false. As for the angry fans, if you would prefer to replace that part with the actual quote from the CEO, that might be an acceptable solution; that way you wouldn't have to set your delicate mind such a difficult task in figuring out whether "flood" and "many" are close enough to equivalent or whether deciding that people who care about a fandom award really are fans is too much original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And there's an example, which shows specifically that it has happened. It's actually a difficult piece of wording, because many ways you might write it (e.g. “sometimes generates”) imply a sense of frequency, but the frequency is unknown and therefore should not be categorized. As for my delicacy of my mind, ad hominem attacks have no place here—there's even a Wikipedia policy against them. Kerfuffler (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As for incorporating Brad's “a flood of livid Twitter messages”, offhand I don't see a good way to do that without adding more verbiage. E.g., I can't say “In response to "a flood of livid Twitter messages",” because we don't know that the apology was issued in response to the Twitter feed, or if there was other communication. And this incident already has more verbiage than it probably deserves. Kerfuffler (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems we've settled on a wording here. It's not perfect, but it doesn't rankle me enough to fight about it. Peace. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ustream.tv

I am currently looking for WP:RS that covers ustream. I had to leave my system for a few moments. If this article doesn't improve in 24 hours. Please CSD it. --w^{L<speak·check>} 02:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have included two sources which state the appearent notablity of this site, which should at least cover the CSD requirement. However, I started it out as a stub, so it needs more time to establish itself as a normal article. I will do so later on this week. Be aware that if this article is speedy deleted, I will put it on deletion review--w^{L<speak·check>} 03:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged Brad Hunstable

I completed the merge Scirocco6 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute

This entire page appears to have been written by a PR flack from Ustream. Very few of the people that are said to have "broadcasted" on the site have had anything to actually do with their "broadcasts," and so can not be considered broadcasters. Citations are needed for all of these "broadcasters." Grinman999 (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the article is just a list of people with no citations to back them up (with the exception of the first two paragraphs). It doesn't go into much detail about how the site runs or cover any specific events. This article needs to be expanded, but not by listing a bunch of people. If sources aren't found, and the list turned into some sort of prose, you could delete the lists based on WP:V. --w^{L<speak·check>} 06:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up

I've just been very bold and removed all the rubbish that was cluttering this article, hadn't contained any useful information, couldn't be quoted. If someone want's to incorporate it in a better form, i.e. encyclopeadic, please do, but i don't think it's of any importance to the matter. pop pop beat it up like a drummer.

Floker (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. Ustream founders are some of the biggest scumbags and liars so i'm sure nothing here is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.164.35 (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, NASA uses them lasombra bg (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move Jesant13 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Ustream.tv → Ustream – Today, I did some research on the Ustream website. The Ustream logo does not include ".tv", and in the "About" section on the website, ".tv" is not mentioned at all. I also checked the privacy policy and terms of service. ".tv" isn't included, with the exceptions being in some places where the website is mentioned and where some email addresses with the "@ustream.tv" domain are mentioned. I looked at part of the "Wikipedia:Article titles" article and I think such a move makes sense. However, since I thought such a move might cause controversy without any sort of discussion first, I decided to create this section so that there can be feedback. --Jesant13 (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hugos and mainstream coverage

The Worldcon incident is in the Guardian - <http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/04/jo-walton-hugo-award-harry-potter>. Is this enough to be worth mentioning in the article? DS (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's already mentioned. Look again. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ustream creation date

wiki reports that Ustream.tv was started in 2007.

but Network Solutions.com says different.

it says the domain, Ustream.TV was created in 2009

Raven 107.5.63.17 (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Network Solutions is a reliable source for some purposes, but not for determining when a company was founded - their dates are keyed off registration date data, and multiple factors can reset those dates. To demonstrate the erroneous nature of the date shown by Network Solutions, just look at the existing refs that are already within this article. There's a press release on Businesswire.com which is dated Nov 13, 2007. Additional refs discussing the company already in the article are also dated from 2007 and 2008[1][2], well before the date shown by Network Solutions.

This article does need work though; the wording needs to be cleaned up to meet WP:NPOV content policy. Currently it reads too much like an advert. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Is registration really optional?

Is registration really optional as it is stated in the info box? I declined to register. I have tried to get videos that are posted on Ustream to play on my laptop with Windows 7. They will not play. Here is the webpage I am trying to get to play. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/611909231archie99 1archie99 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ustream's new name

Recently, Ustream changed its name to IBM Cloud Video, as per website. Should we redirect this page to the said new name? SUPERASTIG 10:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Since 1st April, Ustream is IBM Cloud Video. Weshsalut (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)