Talk:Gracenote/Archive 1

As written this page appears to be a shill for AMG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.173.199 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 April 2005

Please be specific about your complaints or the POV tag will be removed. AlistairMcMillan 03:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to be balanced. What is the problem that the POV tag is addressing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatandhappy (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 April 2005

removed POV tag

The POV tag inserted by the anonymous writer was removed since there is no reason given for inserting it in the first place. If there is reason for placing a POV tag, reinsert it and give a clear reason for placing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatandhappy (talk • contribs) 00:49, 24 April 2005

Compare this to the AMG page. It's is more balanced than it used to be but is still biased toward AMG.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.220.148.208 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 May 2005 (edit -- now that it has been reverted, it is back to being a shill for AMG).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.220.148.208 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 7 June 2005

Please be specific regarding the issues. If there is anything factually incorrect about the article, please, please cite and clarify.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatandhappy (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 May 2005

First, the CD database does actually have 3 million + CDs. And where is the source that says there are only 600,000 CDs ever released? Gracenote database contains many personal mixes, bootlegs, and promo CDs, as well as CD singles and magazine CDs, and even CDs ripped from mp3s recorded from vinyl.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.220.148.208 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 7 June 2005

The database also contains large numbers of duplicates and spelling errors, which you failed to mention. Now that the controversy over the number of actual CDs as opposed to various versions of entries about the same CDs in the database has been cited by Dpbsmith, are there any other specific problems with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenta (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 June 2005

Please stop reverting everything I add

This article is about Gracenote, and I am the founder. I know the details of its founding. I know the details of its products. I know the details of its legal history. I have changed the text to remove numerous factual errors in all of these aspects and more. More than once my changes have been reverted wholesale as "unverifiable". The facts that are supposedly unverifiable are either easy to verify if you bother to look, or are obvious for other reasons. (For example, the statement that commercialization of Gracenote bothered its former licensees, such as Roxio. That fails logic. How could there have been licensees before Gracenote was commercialized?)

I have left in mentions of controversy and legal issues, in the interest of fairness and completeness. However, those subjects should not dominate, and I have changed them so that they have an appropriate level of emphasis. And correctness. I was there, and it's just plain wrong for this page to point to non-final court rulings that were overturned or superseded, as if they hadn't been.

I will be adding more interesting content in the future, of the sort that people expect to see on a page dedicated to a particular topic. To all users with a chip of some sort on their shoulder: please cease to vandalize this page in the guise of removing "unverifiable content". I know more than any single person on this topic and AM the primary source of verification for anything Gracenote-related. -- Steve Scherf 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting properly sourced materials

Wikipedia is neither an advertising nor a promotional medium. Please do not use it as such. You are right that factual errors should be corrected. Removing sourced information that happens to be inconvenient for you (for example, links to court documents and barrister's websites), however, is not proper Wikipedia behavior. If you really are Mr. Scherf, please add useful, properly sourced information that befits Wikipedia, not a sales brochure. And please stop your attempts to whitewash history. -- Kenta 14:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To Mr. Scherf

Mr Scherf, Wikipedia strongly discourages anyone from writing or editing articles about themselves, and especially in any controversial situation, one party to the controversy is not likely to have the sort of objectivity needed for an encyclopedic report.

I can sympathize with your frustration if completely, and objectively demonstrable, facts are being misrepresented about your company.

The "Wikipedia" way to deal with this is for you to post a comment here in Talk, with polite arguments and links to objective reference sources -- and request that someone else look into the issue and correct any statement you believe is factually wrong.

It will take longer to get any errors fixed, but the fixes will be more durable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.11.91 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 October 2006

Vandalism

I agree with your opinion, in general. However, this is a special case. This page has been subjected to blanket reversions by vandals who apparently care nothing about the facts. It seemingly matters not at all that recent edits to this page have corrected glaring errors in the legal section, with numerous citations of court documents to back it all up, for example. The blanket reversion made just about a day ago by an anonymous vandal put back an older version of the page with totally incorrect information (not to mention unsubstantiated opinion), with a total lack of regard for the fully substantiated newer text that obviates and disproves the older text.

That's the kind of blatant attacks against this page that I'm talking about. There is nothing durable about this page. Adding links to actual facts has had no bearing on the frequency of blanket reversions and other malicious edits by vandals back to bad information. Forgive me if I say that the Wikipedia way is failing here, even if it (questionably) manages to work elsewhere on Wikipedia. It depends on contributors who are truly interested in the accurate, apolitical, factual presentation of information, without an agenda. Without that, it cannot work, and that's why it's not working here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scherf (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 October 2006

This article has a POV problem

M. Scherf (or M. "Sooahs"),

I strongly disagree with your opinion. You have removed a number of citations from reputable and verifiable sources and replaced them with links to documents that in many cases do not support the the text. You have also created an article which is not neutral. Specifically, you have removed well documented and discussed sections such as:

• text and links which describe the controversy caused by your commercialization of the service
• text and links which describe the controversy over the actual numbers of CDs in your database
• text and links which describe the results of the lawsuit with Musicmatch

amongst other verified bits of information which were in the previous edit to the article.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As mentioned above, Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about one's self (or one's company). If you have changes that you feel need to be made, you are best served by following the Wikipedia policies, and letting others make changes based on discussion in this talk area. If you feel the article is unjust, feel free to make comments here and start a civilized discussion. Currently your comments merely display anger and do not discuss any facts, and could be interpreted as less than civil. Kenta 13:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Explain please

This page is supposed to be about Gracenote. What is wrong with listing the products/services Gracenote produces? What is wrong with describing what that company is and does? By reading the original text, one might conclude that Gracenote only produces controversy and lawsuits. There was no mention of any product or service other than CD recognition, which is now only a small part of what Gracenote does. I am unclear why describing what Gracenote actually does is inappropriate for the Gracenote page, and how that is considered standing up on a soapbox?

This is a Gracenote page, not the AMG page, the freedb page, or anyone else's page. Such competitors do not belong in the introduction, taking up the majority of the section. The are now mentioned in the body and listed at the end as well. That's the appropriate placement. I would rather not even mention them on a page dedicated to Gracenote, but concede that they should be present in a reasonable context. It is not reasonable to have them dominate the introduction to an article about Gracenote.

The controversy surrounding Gracenote's creation is still in the text. It was not removed. However, it doesn't need dominate the page. Gracenote has over 100 million distinct users with probably half that active at any one time; with that many people using the service, there will always be a small fraction that are disgruntled, whether you're talking about Gracenote or anything else. Unfortunately, that small fraction (including you, apparently) is using this page as a place to air their grievances. So the controversy section was blown way out of proportion.

As for the number of CDs in the database, we have a page at [1] that clearly states the number of CDs Gracenote's database covers. This is an actual count of the database. Our own studies of the number of lookups against this database shows that over 60% of the entries are looked up on a regular basis by multiple individuals. If these are not real CDs, then how can people be looking them up? That's 3 million active CDs worldwide, at the very least, with over 5.2 million registered CDs, be they commercial, demo, bootleg or home burn. Our page states the count clearly. Are you disputing that? Where is the evidence that this is in error or is a fabrication? It is totally absurd to think that Gracenote would just make up these numbers and publish them. For Pete's sake, freedb has something like 2 million CDs in their database and they have a lot less users than Gracenote. Where is your evidence that this is wrong- hard evidence - aside from the fact that someone who posted here wanted to stir up controversy?

And as for the legal page, I'm not really sure how to respond to what you've said. The text that was put there was incomplete and blatantly incorrect. Blatantly. That text was replaced with a correct description of events, as well as links to actual court documents to support that description. The new text contains no interpretation or opinion. It is simply a straightforward explanation of the seven court documents linked to from the page. That stated, I am very curious to hear your explanation of why these documents do not support the text? And I am also very curious to hear your explanation of how the old text supported such claims to the effect that "Gracenote's loss" in the case has opened up the market to competitors. That's especially interesting, considering that the court document clearly states that Gracenote did not lose. As for the link to Becker's CV, that was removed because, as proven by the court documents, it is incorrect. This should not come as a surprise. This is the CV of a lawyer who was on the opposing side in the case, and has no incentive to note that he lost the case on his resume. The court documents prove that the information was wrong, and therefore it should not be on the page.

I cannot fathom how you can continue to make these arguments in the face of overwhelming facts which show them to be entirely false. I can't help but conclude that these are simply tactics to stir things up here, or perhaps befuddle editors who may not take the time to really look into your claims. Regardless, the fact is that the Wikipedia guidelines are just that - guidelines. Anyone may edit here, discouraged or not. If this page had even a semblance of impartiality to it, and actually contained a preponderance of factual text, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd be happy to let others manage the page. But the fact is that this page, not to mention many others on Wikipedia, are under attack from people with agendas who see Wikipedia as a venue for striking at others. Others may sit by and allow misinformation ranging from non-fact to libel to be perpetrated against them, but I don't take that view. We've had our discussions here, and we've posted links and lots of corrections, but it's gotten exactly nowhere. Given the amount of vandalism here, we have no choice but to actively keep the page factual.

On a last note, I would note that some quite good text has been posted here by individuals that I do not know personally. They have taken it upon themselves to contribute to the page. I'm not sure why their edits should not be given credence, just because you assume it's really someone affiliated with Gracenote in every case. The user "msooahs", however, is a legal intern at Gracenote who took the time to gather the court documents and write the legal text for the page. This was initiated independent of my contributions here. That work was initiated by our counsel because the page was so totally incorrect, and it was only after they saw that I had been contributing to the page that they notified me of their intent. So even that work was done without my involvement. (I must also note that msooahs knew nothing about Gracenote's legal history until digging into the court documents. They speak for themselves, and so it matters little who posted them here.)

Finally, more than one person here has mentioned the "Wikipedia way" and complained that somehow I and others have not been following it. I would ask that you who have complained examine your own actions very closely before making such statements. The Wikipedia guidelines say you should not revert text, yet you have done so, often times across the contributions of multiple independent users (not just against me). The guidelines say many other things as well that have been violated here by those who claim to be acting true to the guidelines. I have described only a portion of it here. The total disregard for the guidelines, as well as a disregard for fact and truth here is utterly appalling. One can only conclude that those who have been perpetrating the vandalism against this page know all of this already, but are trying to hide behind the guidelines as if they have been acting in good faith. Such "Rovian" tactics have no place here. Steve Scherf 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanation and Response

Your response is a wonderful example of why people should not write about themselves in Wikipedia.

Scherf wrote: "...Gracenote only produces controversy and lawsuits."

Though you may be in denial as one of the creators of the original CDDB and employee of Gracenote, Gracenote is in fact a highly controversial company in many ways and one which aggressively pursues lawsuits against its clients. These facts were well documented in the original article. Gosh Scherf, the controversy over your commercialization and the lawsuits was Slashdotted, written up in numerous articles, blogged, and privately discussed throughout the digital media and the internet world. Placing factual information about the products Gracenote produces is not the problem you have created. The problem is that you (and your minions) have deleted other "good, well researched contributions of many users" in order to further your own agenda of minimizing the reality that Gracenote is controversial.

Scherf wrote: "...Gracenote would just make up these numbers [about CDs in the database] and publish them."

Scherf, you are in denial again. The controversy is quite real. Much of Gracenote's (and other user-created services') data is likely to be multiple versions of the same CD. Just because you claim to have 5.2 million entries in your database does not mean there are really 5.2 million CDs released in the world. Gracenote has many variations in the spellings (and misspellings) of the same CDs. The misspelled data which you aggregated was used to help close down Napster (the original one). The controversy over your claims of millions of CDs was also well documented in the original article, and you (or your employee) deleted it.

Scherf wrote: "..."Gracenote's loss" in the case has opened up the market to competitors."

Gracenote sought damages for patent infringement against Musicmatch, and only received a settlement based on a relatively minor contract issue. That is all that the documents say. It is interesting that you deleted the CV information from Musicmatch's lawyer and insinuate that he is not being accurate or truthful because he is somehow has no incentive to do so. Lawyers in California (and other states in the USA) have strict requirements regarding advertising accurately and truthfully, under severe penalty. It is also interesting that none of the Gracenote lawyers from the case mention anything about winning the case, they merely mentioned that they represented Gracenote. If Gracenote did so well by the case, wouldn't your lawyers mention the fact. Are you trying to say that Gracenote's lawyers are somehow different or better than Musicmatch lawyers? Perhaps more ethical? It would seem highly unlikely. Occam's razor would seem to dictate that the lawyers accurately describe the results of the case because of stringent legal requirements. According to the Musicmatch lawyer's CV, "The parties agreed to settle the case after Musicmatch obtained summary judgment on all patent claims." One should probably conclude from this quote as well as the court documents posted the case did not go well for Gracenote. This case was well publicized and has far reaching implications for Gracenote, its competitors, and its customers. Trying to minimize this issue in Wikipedia by deleting other users' "good, well researched" information is not proper behavior.

Scherf wrote: "...befuddle editors who may not take the time to really look into your claims. "

One should not doubt this is your intention, but I will assume that you are writing in good faith. My impression is that Wikipedians are generally intelligent and dilligent, and they are not so easily "befuddled" by such "Rovian tactics" as yours. Accusing Wikipedians of being somehow disgruntled with your company is just plain straight old FUD. It seems more likely that you are financially motivated to have no "ungood" information in your famous/infamous organization's article. In the meantime, this article should be returned to its original pre-Gracenote Spin Rewrite version. If you would like to have changes made such as adding product information, please do so. But please, please do not delete the facts, and Scherf, do not mess up the carpet with your dirty, dirty shoes. Kenta 14:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Impartiality?

I won't bother to debate further. Your laymans understanding of law is deeply flawed, as is your knowledge of history and the technology on many points here. I could spend all day explaining every major and minor error in the text that you and (presumably) others have pushed, but even trying to deal with the glaring errors here has been fruitless. So I'll stop trying. I'll end here with a quote from your text:

"Scherf, do not mess up the carpet with your dirty, dirty shoes"

I think this illustrates why people with chips on their shoulder should not write about things of which they are incapable of being impartial. Nobody who knows the actual history, not the /. history or the myths created by crazy things posted here and there on the web, often in "fringe" publications, but the actual history, would accuse me of being "dirty". If that's the way you feel, you have no business posting here. Leave it to someone who is capable of looking at both sides, and is not afraid to have their opinion changed by facts that contradict their unwavering beliefs. To live up to what you seem to be saying about me, you (and others) should recuse yourself from further editorial responsibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scherf (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 October 2006

Please stop editing topics in which you are personally involved. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this. If you have a problem with the content of this article, please suggest changes on the Talk page, backing them up with sources. AlistairMcMillan 22:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AlistairMcMIllan. If this article is missing information, or is incorrect, Scherf, you should point it out on this discussion page and let the Wikipedia community make the decision to edit. I have tried to add back in impartial information based on your edits and comments. Since you obviously are not an impartial party to Gracenote, you should follow Wikipedia policy.Fatandhappy 03:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Hello. I see there seems to be a contentious dispute going on here. I have left a little note on the talk pages of everyone who seems to be involved reminding them to stay cool. I would like to try to help resolve this dispute. I'm not real familiar with the music industry, and today is the first time I've heard of Gracenote, so you will all have to be very patient with me and help me understand. I've read the comments here on the talk page, and dug through the page history. It looks to me like some of the differences aren't really as big as you seem to think they are.

I've created a subpage in my userspace and copied the text of this article as of this, the current version when I first looked at the page. I've begun comparing it to past versions and trying to work out a neutral, balanced version that I hope everyone can agree on. I haven't gotten very far yet because I'm trying to be meticulous. So far I've only worked on the first paragraph. The page is here. Please look at my changes to that first paragraph and tell me what you think. Let's avoid editing this main article for a few days or a week or so, and work on that temporary page. Let's keep discussion on this main talk page however. When we're all happy with the temporary page, let's copy it back to the main page.

Some of the changes I made to the first paragraph;

1. changed which maintains and licenses to which is known for maintaining and licensing. Some of User:Scherf's versions indicated that that is not the only thing they do. However, it is what they are primarily known for. Other things they do can (and should!) be listed elsewhere in the article.
2. accessible online over the Internet is redundant. I eliminated online.
3. Took out "such as iTunes" because when I think of a computer software application I think of something like Windows MediaPlayer. When I think of iTunes, I think of an iPod. It seemed like an unnecesarily confusing way of phrasing that sentence, and I didn't think it needed an example.
4. Got rid of the list of competitors in that same sentence. Scherf is right that they are getting undue weight in the intro; but what struck me even more then that is the fact that having them in there made that sentence unreadably confusing. I left one example of another service that does the same thing, All Media Guide's AMG LASSO. I think it is appropriate to note that Gracenote is not the only company providing this service, and to name their primary competitor (but ONLY one competitor). Let me know if I picked the wrong one to leave in.

I think that's all the changes I made. Let me know what you think of those changes, and my idea for working towards a compromise. I won't be working on this article any more tonight, but I'll be back tomorrow. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It may technically qualify as NPOV, but the emphasis seems wrong for true NPOV. First, neither Gracenote nor any other competitor is mentioned in the first paragraph of the All Media Guide article - the assymetry is telling. Second, of a bunch of other corporate pages I just checked (Xerox, IBM, Microsoft - at least as controversial, Halliburton - ditto, IMDB - similar story of user-created data becoming commericalized over some contributor objections) most do not refer to major controversies or competitors in their first paragraphs. I can't find a "corporate biography" style guide, but the proposal Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises is surely on point here. Disclaimer: I am an employee of Gracenote, so I will not be doing any editing of this article myself, painful though it is to read it. Isotropy 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kenta (whoever you are)

If your goal is to provide an impartial, factual and accurate information about Gracenote, then why do you, in addition to making edits which are inaccurate and not at all supported by any facts, deprive the users of Wikipedia to read the court rulings for themselves? If you are adament on your position, then why do you feel the need to remove all information relating to the litigation section which is clearly public information??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.229.18 (talk • contribs)

The link to the Gracenote legal site with legal documents is available on the bottom of the page. The document as it stands is well documented. I noticed that you not only changed the legal section, but also changed and deleted a large portion of the rest of the article, as well, so I have reverted it. Fatandhappy 14:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)