This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Is there a reason this is listed under Category: Holidays?
I don't see why it should be, maybe under a "Holidaying" category, but holidays is just dates... FrancisTyers 08:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think this is just because of mistaking "holidays" for "vacations". And I don't even know, if this sentence was grammatically right... ;) User:Felix
I added a graph of user growth, personally I think it gives a nice touch to the article, although anyone who disagrees is welcome to remove it... - FrancisTyers 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's nice to have a graph there. But the current version is very
strange. It seems to imply that before the 03/2005 the growth more or less followed a logistical curve, with expected saturation value somewhere around 35 thousand people. Then in this month something very very strange happened
and the growth went to linear (which seems also very strange for such a kind of project). I think this is because the graph was made only from a few data points and then fitted with a curve in a statistically wrong way. It's important to at least include the data points (e.g. as crosses or circles) and preferably drop the fit line at all. Or think of some model of the growth and fit the data with this. If this is the issue, I offer to help with this (and make a nice graph) to whoever posted the original and has access to the data it was made from.
If this is not the case and the points on the graph are not a line fit, but actual datapoints, sampled with high resolution, then can somebody please exaplain me what the hell does it mean? What did happen in 03/2005?
I don't know what exactly happens, but I do know growth can be irregular because of the aproving process of new members. For example, recently some 20000 new members were put on hold (not included in the statistics, nor full members yet), because of server problems.
It is fixed now. The graph explains data are taken daily and the early data are only an estimate
in the caption. My early objection that it is important to differentiate between data points and fit line was not correct, because the sampling frequency is actually so high that all the points on the line are data points. Now it is explained in the caption so everyone can understand the graph. Also the early esimate is now somehow smothen as not to suggest some strange skip. I'm impressed by the work Francis has put in to gather the correct data. Thank you! --hhanke 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I just added the link. But please remove if it at will. I'm currently writing another article, after I got some reactions which were quite shocking for me, like people not being able to send or receive messages at all. And harsh critique about the structure of the organisation of HC. But I'm still waiting for a response from the people who asked me and other people to change the "profile summary", which was saying something about the censorship on the forum... Guaka 14:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to make any changes you see fit, so long as you can source them :) - FrancisTyers 14:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a member of HC myself and I know that you can turn of the mail monitoring for your account there if you want. They also make it clear from the very beginning that mail is being scanned. Wikipedia article is not the right place to discuss your personal opinion on the club anyway. --Lysy(talk) 16:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are people who cannot receive nor send messages at all, regardless of mail monitoring. And this is not my personal opinion... And besides, you removed a lot more than just the lines about mail monitoring. For that you need a bit more justification than just mentioning bboard and personal opinion. They make it clear that your mail is being scanned, but did you expect that they would remove the mail if you mention CouchSurfing? Did you expect that some members, without any negative comment, cannot send or receive messages at all? Guaka 16:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know your message was removed because it mentioned CouchSurfing ? Maybe it was removed because of something else ? (BTW: could you try sending me a message through HC with "CoachSurfing" mentioned so that we could see if it gets through or not ?) --Lysy(talk) 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your removal of text is totally unjustified! Please restore the text! Guaka 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the text in the interests of npov as it is sourced clearly. Explaining that there is no registered organisation is a perfectly valid piece of information to include. Please try to be constructive instead of blanket reverting. I think we're all HC members here. - FrancisTyers 16:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Come on guys, you cannot seriously use your own blog page as a source :-) --Lysy(talk) 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't my blog. I don't have anything to do with it. - FrancisTyers 16:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not yours as it's Guaka's blog. I'm assuming your good faith, FrancisTyers but are you really not aware of what pages are you using for sources ? --Lysy(talk) 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that it was Guakas blog no. I added it because I had been given the url by someone else in the club who had expressed dissatisfaction with the way it was run (If you'd like to contact me through the site I will give you his name, but I'd prefer not to write it on this talk page). You can find some of the users who are upset by doing a search for "couchsurfing" in the "profile summary". - FrancisTyers 16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reading it again, I can see the GuakaBlog. You can remove the reference if you like, but the issue of censorship is also covered here: ... I'm not sure if that is one of Guakas sites too, is it? - FrancisTyers 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more careful! :) guaka is even in the URL you pasted here :) But though I exchange emails with one or possibly more people working on hospitalityguide.net I don't think there is a single line of text there written by me. Guaka 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lol yeah, I must be blind or something - It must be said though that I posted the link before even interacting with Guaka on wikipedia... - FrancisTyers 16:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please read the new article I'm working on to get things clear. It's not finished yet, since I'm waiting for a reaction from the "founding fathers" on this open message. But most of the text there is not written by me... :) And in the first article linked to the most important text isn't written by me either. Well, peace... Guaka 16:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As my website is mentioned above and it is in my personal interest to improve hospitality exchange as whole and not particularly for one network, or person/group of people. It has shown more than once that HC claims different than they act and are, this also covers given information by HC about structure, users security and many other topics.. It showed to be necessary to double check any given information by HC (which is most of the time 'fungous') with other sources, which also incl. personal experiences, especially as HC is moving to an 'organization' with one million members, in the interest of hospitality exchange. AlexanderSteinhart 12:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have the feeling that you are disappointed with HC and are trying to express this personal emotion of yours in the article here. While I do not want to endorse censorship, I don't think the article is the proper place to discuss whether what you've experienced there was censorship or not. Also I feel it's inappropriate to use your own blog as a source, don't you think so ? As for the fact that the messages are being monitored for spam (and this feature can be turned off) I think they are very clear about it. Maybe you've just not set it in your preferences setting or read HC's disclaimer ? --Lysy(talk) 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I am disappointed. But I hope the article just mentions facts. Someone else added the link before I did. When reading HC's disclaimer, is it clear that your message will be removed if you mention CouchSurfing? Guaka 16:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding your recent addition about HC's DNS and who registered the domain, why do you think it deserves to be mentioned here ? Peace ! --Lysy(talk) 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be mentioned because it is rather odd for an organization of nearly 100.000 members, don't you think so? What about continuity? Peace&love! Guaka 16:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Maybe I'm being naive, but I do not like official organisations, so I see nothing wrong with it. Would having a registered company make you feel better ? I find it easier to trust in people, not in companies or organisations. --Lysy(talk) 17:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I trust in people organising. If Wikipedia were managed by Jimbo himself, many problems would have arisen and it wouldn't have grown so big, I think. There are many possible problems I can think of, when there's just one person personally responsible and liable, for that person himself, and also for the whole organisation. It's still doable for a group of 1000 people living in one village, but with 100.000 people all over the world it's practically impossible for those people to personally know the people responsible. And for this reason it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article if an organisation of nearly 100.000 people isn't registered legally. Guaka 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want the See also heading? I think it's kind of superfluous since there is a hospitality service category now. Guaka 20:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just found out CouchSurfing group messages are open to the public. This one, started by the founder of Hospitality Club, is pretty interesting... Guaka 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that we need a discussion about the criticism part. I am a hc member and cs member and was surprised to read that there these rivalries. i checked guakas arguments and saw that indeed quite a few people were unhappy with the way the hospitality club is run. also the censorship thing needs a discussion within the hospitality club. but does it really belong in an encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 11 January 2006.
Can anyone please tell me why criticism should be forbidden on this Hospitality Club article, while it seems perfectly ok on the German version? There are tons of references. How can one possibly ignore this? --Spitzl 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of messages containing CouchSurfing?
What happened to the part of the article containing information about the deletion of messages containing CouchSurfing? Guaka 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the editnote if you would care to read that, the main problem is this information is outdated. Rewrite it as "there was once a debate about bla bla" if you think it's notable. --Valmi ✒ 15:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated in what sense? Did I miss something? The last thing I read about this was that messages containing website promotion are to be deleted and that a link to CouchSurfing is supposed to be considered website promotion by HC spam checkers. You wrote it yourself, remember? Guaka 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't know how you could have read this email of mine without breaking the article of the civil law of the country from which it was issued concerning privacy, damn it, now that's embarassing isn't it?
The point anyway, is that the information contained in this email, which by the way was just my opinion (nothing authoritative, you see), is outdated. Reverted. --Valmi ✒ 00:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, why don't we let someone that has not became so involved investigate the claims and rewrite that section of the article? Many editors have contributed to this talk page that could d that. Agreed? Any objective volunteer? --Valmi ✒ 00:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated in what sense? Did I miss something? The last thing I read about this was that messages containing website promotion are to be deleted and that a link to CouchSurfing is supposed to be considered website promotion by HC spam checkers.
As Valmi stated, this is no longer the case and as such if it is to be included, it should be done in the past tense. - FrancisTyers 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I read more about this? Did the rules change? Why didn't anyone let me know? I'd be really happy to read about this somewhere, and my position towards HC would change significantly. Guaka
Ask Valmi, I'm not sure if there has been a press release. Feel free to try it out ;) - FrancisTyers 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed to talk page pending citation. - FrancisTyers 21:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hosting for the site is partially paid for by money coming from Google's AdSense, although this doesn't cover the full cost of hosting according to the founder, as noone else has insight in financial matters. 
According to the founder, there will never be any "commitee" for taking decisions, as long as he is onboard in the club and is involved in it.
For the second one, about which Veit writes "I took out the parts that have me as a "source" - sorry, but I think I ain't gonna be that source.". I was forwarded the email written by Veit stating this was forwarded to me. I put it online on my wiki, and it was removed by Veit and Valmi. I was even threatened with a law-suit in Brazil. And I removed the email.
That was enough confirmation for me. How to get enough confirmation for Wikipedia? Which source, that I can write for, would be accepted? Indymedia, Wikinews, kuro5hin? Guaka 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. After copying my private email to your website you are now diffamating me of Wikipedia. To set the record straight for those that were not involved, I would have deleted it for sure but I didn't because the page was protected, and I explicitely stated in my email to your web hoster that I didn't want to sue. (Though I would have every right to.)
As of quoting Veit on Wikipedia, here is a totally unobjective suggestion: since a private email accounts to a private conversation and being forwarded a private email accounts pretty much to overhearing a private conversations, I suggest that you write: "Kühne was overheard as saying during a private conversation that..."
Or I could reiterate my suggestion to let somebody with less POV than you and I write something that they think is fair.
Well, isn't explicitly stating that you don't want to sue an implicit threat?
Oh, and by the way, I just finished an article about this mess on my new blog. Obviously, I was a bit reluctant to quote more from the cease and desist, but if I get permission I'm happy to add some more text, which might be less "diffamating". Guaka 16:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. How do you define "implicite threat"?
I think you noticed that your new blog entry still contains lots of illegal content. I hope you'll take a look through the privacy laws that apply in your country and fix everything without anybody having to implicitely threaten you.
Ah, and considering your "implicit permission seeking" to quote my "implicitely threatening" "cease and desist", you should have contacted me before doing it, but anyway I give you a choice of either keeping it as it is, or quoting the full unedited content of both emails I wrote to your hoster, as suits you better. I don't mind you copying this messahe as long as you don't make it look like I mean something else than what I really meant.
Concerning the other email which you suggested to send to anybody that will ask by email, it is obviously out of the question and you will have to even remove that offer from your website.
I just finished reading "Freedom of Expression", and after reading it I'm quite sure I need to remove anything from my blog. Guaka
Separate entry for Veit
I know that this would be supposed to go to the Veit Kuehne discussion page but I doubt anyone checks there often and the relevant people discuss here. I am wondering if a seperate entry for Veit is really appropiate in an encyclopedia. After all he is not that an important person. Isn't it enough to mention his name here? I suggest to delete that entry but would like to know what you think about it before I do so... Splette 13:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to start the debate because I lack neutrality on the matter, but I agree with you that Kühne is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Kühne does not qualify as political figure because he held only a local office and I doubt that his founding HC makes him notorious for his involvement in newsworthy events at this time. To be fully honest, the fact that the article was created by a notable opponent of Kühne not totally without a Wikipedia agenda is the final argument for me. Hence a listing on AfD would have my support. --Valmi ✒ 15:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a very borderline case, feel free to AfD it but I'll vote neutral or abstain, the chances are the other AfDers will class him nn. - FrancisTyers 18:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's sort of responsible for an organisation of more than 100.000 people, growing to 1 million. I think that in itself is enough to have an article about him. Question: am I an opponent? Guaka
Help for Guaka
You can copy and paste this: ~~~~ - FrancisTyers 16:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links to other hospitality services
Hi Valmi, why did you remove the links to similar organisations which I put in the See also section? The link you gave in the comment does not exist. I presume there has been some discussion about this before?! Still I think it makes perfect sense to let readers know about Wiki pages of similar organisations which by the way also link to HC and each other. I know HC does not like to promote the others on their site and there they can do what they want. But this is Wikipedia and does not follow HC's policy. Rather should Wikipedia give the reader the most complete picture possible..., agree? Splette 16:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put a couple brackets too many; please see Talk:Hospitality_Club#See_also.3F. That has nothing to do with HC policies, indeed it was suggested by Guaka to remove those links, and Guaka is against those HC policies himself. The links are just made redundant by the existance of a category. --Valmi ✒ 21:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually it was also suggested because there was mention of other hospitality exchange sites before (something like "messages containing links to other hosp. ex. sites are supposed to be removed"). This was removed. So maybe someone else can write something about the relationship between HC and other hospitality sites. It definitely belongs in the article. Guaka
I think it would be nice to have the HC logo on the page but I don't know who owns the rights of it. Or maybe a low resolution version could be uploaded like it is done for many company logos. Does any one of you know more about the licensing? What do you think? --Splette
It's anarchy at its best: you want a logo, you draw a logo and you use it. Seriously, if you spotted one "unofficial" logo that was used more than the others in camps and seemed generally accepted, I think it would be interesting to add it to the article. You could call it "the logo members created for themselves" or something. Totally in the spirit, and totally legal as far as I know. There will soon be an "official" one coming along with the upcoming website redesign, but I suppose the unofficial logos will survive to it. --Valmi ✒ 15:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it with Glenn's logo and the explanation he gave for it back in 2004. Logos qualify under fair use. I just hope that this was the one logo you had in mind. :-) The "official" HC logo will probably be based on that one. --Valmi ✒ 10:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one! Yes, thats the one I had in mind. --Splette
Note that this means that a message mentioning an alternative site such as Couchsurfing will be censored. At least some users thinks this is censorship. and Some users thinks this is not about cooperation but about removing the alternatives.
Removed by Valmi with the justification "rv because false":
"Messages that are sent to promote other websites or business opportunities" are forbidden as well, as a consequence a message indicating your profile on an alternative Hospitality service might be considered as website promotion and deleted without notice, depending on the interpretation of the volunteer doing the spam control. Some members are upset by this way of functioning.
Some part is just copy/paste from HC.org. Please give some more justification. Guaka 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. "Deletion of messages containing CouchSurfing?" and "Removed pending citation" on this very talk page. --Valmi
Funny, you it's false, but at the same time you're confirming it when speaking to other people. Guaka 23:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? --Valmi
Someone I'd trust with my life who met you IRL recently told me that. Guaka 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. I actually reverted and started this heading since the deletion included something that clearly wasn't false (quote from HC.org). The other part, well, that's the exciting part, and I know that I can't cite that source. I hope that the next revert doesn't include other tidbits that do have sources. Guaka 16:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other Wikipedia editors are not responsible for classifying what is true and what is not when you add a sentence with many informations of different quality.
Specially when you state yourself that your source for information is what people that you know think that they overheard me saying IRL, nobody will blame me for not volunteering to clean up the mess. --Valmi
I guess it is if there is reference. Would some unverifiable statement mean that the whole article can be removed?
That is just one of my sources, as you know very well yourself. Guaka 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you put a whole new article online that contains mostly false statements, I expect it would be speedily deleted, yes, indeed. Besides, things that are false don't become true just because somebody says it. There might very well be somebody else that says something else. Sources need to be a bit more solid than that if you want to make original research, which obviously you can't. --Valmi
Many members of CouchSurfing regard the network as a dating site, a problem that the founder Casey acknowledges: "Based on what I've seen and heard, these people who come into CS and use it exclusively like a dating site are definitely harming the overall CS experience." 
With a reference from CouchSurfing groups. Is that okay, i.e. cited correctly? If so, why? Because Casey wrote it? Just wanna know what parts from CS groups I can quote. I wouldn't want that part to be removed. Guaka 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Casey wrote it and published it on the net, I suppose that it is an appropriate source for a quotation from Casey, no? If you find something on any Internet forum written and published by Veit, then I would assume that you can quote from it. --Valmi
I removed the "See Also" section that Guaka just added, because we have discussed it in the past already when Guaka (the same one) had suggested that we should remove it. Since there was a consensus then to remove it and that nobody reopened the discussion, I assume that putting it back was a simple étourderie. --Valmi
The consensus that disappeared when the article changed. I'm not a fan of See also sections, but I think there should be mention of other networks in the article. Since this is somehow not otherwise accepted, I want a See also section. Guaka 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by consensus disappearing and articles changing. If you changed your mind after asking fellow editors to remove the "see also" section, please be kind enough as to inform us on the talk page. --Valmi
Vote for a 'See Also' Sektion! Gives the whole thing more transparency. --alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 5 May 2006
Oh Valmi, it's great to see how conform you are. _alex
Info removed and info added
Two things please Guaka:
1) You removed this text...
"The organization thinks it is "best to have one global network" and has tried to cooperate, sometimes successfully, with other networks. It encourages its volunteers to tell all members they meet through other networks about Hospitality Club."
...that you had actually put in yourself. Your edit note did not justify (or indeed say) that you were removing that. Can we know why? Changed your mind about that too? You may consider making a copy of this article in User:Guaka/Sandbox.
2) When you say "The founder prefers not to speak about bad experiences." would you please be kind enough as to provide a quote from your source? This source is uncheckable as it is and makes no sense to the reader because this is the English version of the Wikipedia encyclopedia, you see.
1) That was not my intention. Sorry. Sometimes people make mistakes. Possibly it is because I was editing another version of the article.
2) The quote is definitely checkable, just ask someone to make a translation. You only need a translation of the part that I added in comments to the article. Or is there some WP:ENGLISH article that says that all references should be in English? Guaka 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The founder prefers not to speak about bad experiences. :
"Mit der Sicherheit steht und fällt so ein Club", weiß Veit Kühne. Doch über negative Ereignisse spricht er nicht gern.
A bit literal: "With security such a club stands or falls", knows Veit Kühne. But he doesn't like to speak about negative experiences." Guaka 16:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mit der Sicherheit steht und fällt so ein Club", weiß Veit Kühne. Doch über negative Ereignisse spricht er nicht gern. Lieber verweist er auf das System aus Sicherheitsmaßnahmen, das den Missbrauch des Clubs verhindern soll.
Security can make or break a club", knows Veit Kühne, but he does not speak willingly about the negative aspects, he only refers to the system which stops abuse of the club
I got a friend to do a translation of that part. Could you perhaps give more context. Negative aspects is not the same as negative experiences. I welcome better translations. Perhaps a statement from Veit himself? - FrancisTyers 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this context is 'negative Ereignisse' = 'negative incidents'. Veit refers to negative things which has been happening, not about negative aspects about the system. --alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 May 2006
Regarding a statement from Veit. You will never have any things which are clear and put to the point. I find it a shame that the whole thing is kept in some frog and transparency is not possible. HC will always try to have a clean slate. Take as example the the Wikitravel talk pages where wrong things had been claimed from Valmid, or the 'intern' eMails which had to be deleted and couldn't be used anymore as source for Wiki. Expand the critics page.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 May 2006
Why do two guys keep adding only negative points to this article - can you take your personal fight elsewhere?
It looks like this is simply something personal between [wrongly spelled & not welcome here] (aka alex or 126.96.36.199 - he has been known to do anonymous trolling on many a wiki), Kasper Souren (Guaka) and the founder Veit. From what I know Alex and Guaka have both published emails from other people and Hospitality Club volunteers on their private websites in some fight for "democracy" and against "censorship" in HC (Guaka ironically even licensing those emails from other people as public domain; and then even referencing his personal blog here as "source" - I mean, come on guys, how ridiculous is it gonna get??). And here they keep adding and adding negative stuff about a great site. I will remove some of that, as it is clearly a personal thing of you two. Posting only negative (but factually verifiable) information on a topic, or specifically focusing on negative things without giving the other side IS having a POV - and we all agree that we'd better stick to NPOV here, dont we? Amarent 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without a registered username doesn't mean anonymous, sometimes it shows more than a registered username which hides the IP to the large public. Yes, a neutral point of view and a bit objectivity against all networks is what I try to archive since a long long time. Shame when this includes just negative facts, but I see it more as an critical point of view with needs to be mentioned. Does HC have anything to hide? This whole fight shows that there is some stuff wrong. Let people make their own judgement. Or why do want to take the user for a fool? alex
"Volunteers check the messages being sent across the site to protect members' mailboxes from spam, and to keep trust in the organization at high levels."
The first part is pretty clear. But I wonder where I can find a reference for this high level of trust. Guaka 21:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This might be somehow unrelated but I was always wondering HOW volunteers check messages for spam. Are they actually reading my mail and then decide whether it is spam or not? Wouldn't that violate privacy? Does anyone know? --Splette
Yes, yes (but no), yes. I've been trying to get things clear about this, and as far as I know, there are some HC volunteers who read messages sent to members who didn't uncheck their spamcheck. So most messages, considering it's checked by default. Not clear how many people (let alone who, how many times, or whose messages...) can actually read other people's messages, but for 140000 people this must be a considerate amount, I'd say at least 100 or so. It's a mystery to me and many others why spam checking isn't being done using more conventional methods for checking spam. Would save hundreds of precious volunteer time and improve the privacy of members.
It violates privacy, but you signed your privacy away when you signed up for HC.
...and I don't have any reference hard enough to use as a source for this article. Guaka 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24 people. You consider yourself an expert of the "dark sides of HC" but you never cared to read around the website of HC. I'd love to know how much time you spent trying to figure how many people and who exactly monitor messages. :-D --Valmi ✒ 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valmi, experience tells that there is quite often a difference between what is written on HC and how it is in reality. Yes, a good start is to read around there and not to take anything to literal. Why don't you quys actually not work on making the club more transparent? I think it would save you a lot of hassle. alex 23:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You can take the list of the 24 "spam checkers" from the website quite literal if you want. --Valmi ✒ 14:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, dark sides of HC, those are your words, Valmi. Second, I'm only very critical about certain aspects of HC, I never held up being an expert. I don't spend too much reading HC.org. Where does HC.org mention 24 people? And what happens if there is a language none of the 24 people reads?
Oh, and in the meanwhile Amarent has put back "keep trust in the network at high levels" again without any justification. Guaka 19:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Hospitality Service article says that "Hospitality Club is the direct successor Hospex, the first Internet-based service, operating out of Poland since 1992." Who's right, the Hospitality Club article or the Hospitality Service article...? -- Helen 188.8.131.52 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"After CouchSurfing, another hospitality exchange network, appeared to be gone, 30th June 2006, Veit Kuehne (organization: Hospitality Club) registered couchsurfing.info. As of 25th August 2006 this domain is still pointing to which was directed to the "CS Legacy" group on HC. "
This seems very relevant to me. It's another domain name linking to Hospitality Club. Another domain name that happens to be the name of another hospitality exchange network. Still, Amarent keeps on removing this information. Guaka 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you first add all the domains with couchsurfing in them to the relevant article (Couchsurfing)?? I have the feeling that you are simply trying to put HC into a bad light by your comment. I think it was very good that HC tried to help out stranded Couchsurfers.Amarent 18:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All those domains are mentioned in CouchSurfing, as far as I know. Maybe it needs some restructuring though.
Your feelings and thoughts are no reason for deletion of well referenced and relevant parts of this article. Guaka 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it not be relevant? It seems relevant to me. Guaka 07:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guaka, where exactly is the original research here? By the way, the HC article is using WHOIS lookup as a reference as well. Or are you saying a WHOIS entry is not a reliable source??? --Splette
Certainly, check out WP:RS. Also, do you see similar research in articles about other organisations ? This seems really weird here. --Lysytalk 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:V, "the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". Accordingly, if you have a reputable secondary reference, then could you provide the citation. For the avoidance of doubt WP:RS explains that a secondary source would summarize one or more primary or secondary sources. In this context a Whois lookup would be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Addhoc 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this starts getting ridiculus. I do not think this rule applies when there is a general consensus that the source is trustworthy. Otherwise we would have to doublesource all information given in any wikipedia entry and I am sure this is not what was meant in WP:V. So, you are saying that whois.net, is not reliable and them listing couchsurfing.info as registered by Veit is a false information??? Why would they do that? But ok, apart from whois.net here is another link. Maybe we should ask Veit himself? Or would that be original research again? Just to prove how silly this is: maybe we should remove the mention of 180.000 members in the lead of the article. I mean how do we know the number of members other than from hospitalityclub.org? Any independend second source? --Splette
P.S. Of course I am not serious about removing the number of members...
There is a get out clause to the requirement to have secondary sources in articles about that subject. So the official web site of the Hospitality Club can be used according to WP:RS.
Also WP:OR explains:
"Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements — that serves to advance a position."
You appear to be arguing for the inclusion of "previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories". Addhoc 17:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest removing the reference to the registration by Veit, and just mention that it points to the HC forum - there's nothing controversial about those facts, and it's very relevant, in my view. --Singkong2005 talk 02:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this can't be part of the article. Guaka 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Hospitality Club set up a forum category called "CS Refugees" and a group called "CS Legacy" on its website to help any CouchSurfing members that were stranded on the road to contact their hosts/guests during the crash that happened to that website in June. couchsurfing.info was set up to point to the CS Legacy group on Hospitality Club, and as of the 1st of October 2006 still does so."
When there is controversy about inserting or not a piece of information (in this case, the fact couchsurfing.info goes to hospitalityclub.org) the only possible solution is to vote.
So, who thinks it is relevant for the article about "hospitality club" mentioning the fact that couchsurfing.info, a web site with just the name of an alternative web site, points to hospitalityclub.org and that was registered by the creator of hospitalityclub.org?
"In June 2006 a group of highly involved HC volunteers set up HCvol, an NGO, "where volunteers can organize their work in a democratic and transparent way. " was removed by Amarent with the justification: "and guaka does it again. Why don't you add some critical notes to the CS article, instead always add "facts" to the HC one here?)". Guaka 10:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HCVol is now redundant no? Has it not been replaced by Be Welcome ? - Francis Tyers· 14:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we say that HC is currently down as of May 3rd 2007? It's not a normal outage - the website is out of commission until the db has finished the upgrade to MYSQL 5, which could be days. --Azarethroy
Fair use rationale for Image:HospitalityClub-GobuyanLogo.png
Image:HospitalityClub-GobuyanLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Could someone update the graph of the numbers of members, please? April 2006 is a long time ago. Otherwise I'd suggest to remove it. After all, the exponential growth of HC is mentioned in the article already. --Splette :)How's my driving? 19:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to generate another one, but I've mislaid the data for before 2005, so I only have 2005-2007, which hardly seems worth it. - Francis Tyers· 15:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SINCE SEPT: 2007 . S I L E N C E !
= a most conspicuous sign of HOW DEAD the Hospitality Club is!
In recent years
In the past five years, the number of active members dropt dramatically (1). HC does not publish actual figures, but the grief goes that > 90 % of members are inactive - a fact that can be ascertained by clicking the profiles.
Personally, founder Veit KUEHNE will not disclose his finances not the club's structures (2), or prove the "thousands of volunteers" ' real existence. Volunteers that left, complain of unbearable conditions (3). He eagerly promoted in July 2012 the partnership - resented by most members - with the Californian hôtel broker Airbed & Breakfast [AirBnB], yielding HC a provision with every booking. The broker's profit scheme contrasts diametrically against HC's and its members' idealism; apart from advertising for their own competitor, as each bed can either be marketed with profit, or be ceded for philanthropic reasons for free.
The primary reasons for the disillusionment you find in every forum, every blog are the huge percentage of "dead wood" = inactive members, the snaillike communications, and the leader's inaction and inaccessibility.With > 90 % of members inactive since years, even some major cities have but 1 - 10 active hosts left (4). - Bed requests using the official channels may take 6 months or more - all communications are being spam-tested, which purportedly takes time. - Last not least, all improvement schemes of motivated members meet grave's silence from Dresden Headquarters, and the founder posts but every couple of years, announcing improvements that never materialize - this deafens whatever initiative (5). The young join CouchSurfing; the dead wood stays (6). Homepage Copyright: 2006 !
(1) English homepage: 707 000 members - other languages: 328 000 as of 1-1-2014
(2) CS discussion
(3) CS discussion
(4) In Greater Nuremberg [750 000 inhabitants], only Gartenfreund is still active.
(5) Kymryt from Philadelphia, 75 years old, Summer 2013: Forum: „Ok, how to make HC a better place“
"There are also wiki-like Travel Guide sections ..."
Under Sitemap, your find 'General information Pages', and there, very tiny >Travel Guide: Help and Information<. This is NO wiki and can neither be altered nor expanded; it consists 90 % of terms of contract.
The latest additions contain nearly no sources and look like original research. Please provide some sources. Arved (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
inactive / not working anymore
I guess it is possible to change this into past tense. The project has not been worked on for years, some graphics already vanished in 2019, login did not work since at least February 2021. - Flexman (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you changed this to present tense and removed information that the page does not work anymore, without even participating in the discussion. What prove does it need that the thing does not work? You can't log in for years now, and the website even is offline for 2 days (see here). - Flexman (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. What are you even talking about? The company was defunct so I changed the status from "is" to "was". Since it was a relatively minor edit, I used WP:Bold as it's pretty common use. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 12:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You changed from "was" to "is" in this edit. And user "Unbh" keeps removing information, that the site is not working anymore for years. - Flexman (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've retained the was. THe fact that thes site is not working is not encyclopaeidc information, and is WP:OR.Unbh (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that no one officially buried the project. And it doesn't seem relevant enough anymore that it gets some media coverage or a obituary. However, there is the fact that it is disfunctional for years, which is a relevant information. The big question is which source we could use to prove that. - Flexman (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unbh and Flexman: In my opinion (considering 3O was requested) the fact that the service is defunct, is absolutely grounds for inclusion when the article is specifically about said service. Having said that, I would not phrase it the way that it is now, avoiding the term was, instead opting for a phrasing such as Since <date> the service has been unavailable. or similar. This avoids the WP:OR issue entirely since we do not imply that the service has ceased existing but rather that it is not available for use anymore, which is easily attested by simply going to the website URL. Hope this helps. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 20:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can write: "Since ... the Internt Archive has only captured SQL-Errors for the login page, Saashub shows the page offline since 24 April 2022." This is just describing the given facts without any further conclusion and in my opinion this is also relevant. Also it would be more helpful if User Unbh gives suggestions how to address the issue in a better way instead of just removing edits without participating in discussions. "No encyclopaeidc information" is a thing that can bee seen differently, and also is, like we see in this discussion. - Flexman (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for this at all. It's simply OR. If there aren't sources for it it isn't noteworthy and shouldn't be in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh (talk • contribs)
Collapsing discussion that digresses from the focus of the discussion
@Flexman: Sounds good to me. I agree it's unproductive of Unbh to revert edits without discussion and against consensus and established policy. Consider notifying him on his talk page, if that doesn't work, warn, if that still doesn't get the message across, dispute resolution here might have other solutions that hopefully will not be necessary. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 15:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wowsers. I'm glad you never refereed and football match I played! My edits were not against any established consensus on this article, it Indeed any policy. The addition as it is is obvious original research. Stating "was" in the opening para is enough, the rest simply doesn't need to be there unless a relatively source can be found for noteworthiness.Unbh (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unbh: I fail to see how me being a referee or refereeing any football/soccer match you've played is relevant to the discussion at all. Please don't make it personal, I don't make it personal either. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 18:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're such a WP:PRECOCIOUS editor, please let me know which established policy I've broken here before you recommended warnings and dispute resoluton and 'other solutions'Unbh (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAAC, now I request you stop interacting with me unless it is mandated/recommended by Wikipedia policies, as clearly you're not willing to have a civil conversation with me. Also, please stop vandalizing my Talk page. If you can't stop doing this I won't hesitate to ask for AIV/AIN assistance. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 19:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
all I asked is that you tell me which established policy I've broken while recommending that other users warn me or report meUnbh (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never recommended that other users warn or report you. I simply notified them of standard procedure when it comes to dispute resolution just in case they were not familiar with it. It wasn't ever intended to be a personal attack or an assumption of bad faith to you personally. I merely said that I found it unproductive for you to undo edits and edit war in case the claim made by Flexman that you removed edits without participating in discussions was correct. I only came here because of a 3O request. I don't have personal beef or predispositions towards anyone. If your concern should be with anyone it should be with Flexman since they claimed you did these things, not with me. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 19:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, speaking of assuming bad faith, you baselessly claimed I'm a sockpuppet, while I can assure you this is my first and only account (on WP). ★Ama [[User talk:Ama
But i am participating in the discussion. You claim in editing against consensus - I'm not - or against 'established policy' without casting to explain what that policy may be. You clearly do recommend escalating without any clear reason apart from an obvious failure to AGF towards me. So again, what policy do you think my edits to this article have broken? Unbh (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can take the claim of you going against consensus up with Flexman, I shall refrain from further comments. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 19:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. You made the claim that it was against consensus, and the claim that it was against policy. You are the one failing to assume good faith , not Flexman. Either justify so I can discuss properly or retract.Unbh (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)–[reply]
I have nothing to retract since I reject the claim that I failed to assume good faith, and maintain my stance that I only intended to advise them on further steps to take (provided their claim was right). I apologize for poor phrasing on my part and undue conclusions gathered from it. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent nopology.Unbh (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't have more energy and motivation for it when it's towards someone who's falsely claimed I'm a sockpuppet, called me a precocious editor, involve me being a referee (which has zero relevance here), etc. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 20:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you're self evidently precocious, and self admittedly a referee.Unbh (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So..? You're probably a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the conversation as well. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 20:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conversation since apart from using your sockpuppet to stir up trouble you refuse to answer any of the questions.Unbh (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Majority here has the conclusion that it is not WP:OR. Also the answer "Sounds good to me" by Ama does not digresses from the focus of the discussion. - Flexman (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that my recommendation was regarding adding a sentence linking to a source reporting the website as currently offline or unreachable. The current wording using 'was' implies that the service/site has stopped existing which is 1) WP:OR and 2) not verifiable. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 17:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly this means we need to add that information (that has been removed) because otherwise there is no verifiable information in the article that gives a clue why this "was" a service (instead of "is")? - Flexman (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Flexman and Unbh: I'm saying that regardless of whether you prefer the article to list that the service is defunct, any wording would be better than what it is right now, since now the article implies definitively that the service has ceased to exist, which is unarguably an even worse violation of WP:OR than simply stating the site to be offline per <x>. The more thought I'm giving it the more I'm leaning towards Unbhs point that including it at all seems to be original research if one were to follow the 'law' by the letter. The WP:OR stipulates that no content may be added without a reliable source providing the information, which at first hand might seem obvious that this is not the case here, and thus it shouldn't be included. On the other hand, I sincerely doubt that there would be any sources indicating the service to be defunct or that it ceased to exist, which might in itself point to the inclusion lacking WP:RELEVANCE and thus shouldn't be included. And before anyone assumes, no, the discussion/argument we had at WP:ANI has nothing to do with my shift in view. @Flexman: If you want to further pursue including the subject matter into the article I'd suggest asking for an RfC so that more contributors can opt in and share their thoughts, and no, this isn't a recommendation per se as much as it is an indication that this concludes my own views and I realize it's unlikely to end the matter of contention fully, as it doesn't seem like either 'side' is willing to back off of their point. Hope this helps. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 19:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless you can produce a reliable 3rd party RSUnbh (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The given sources are considered reliable enough by the majority here. Flexman (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...especially better than wrting "was" without any sources... Flexman (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Flexman: Do excuse me and I don't have ill intent or want to assume bad faith, but that does kind of seem cherrypicked. Yes I said that, but it completely skips on the rest I said haha. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 14:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Ok, seems I did not get the point of your answer as it was quite complicated and I'm not a native speaker, but it seems to make sense to ask for RfC and more opinions. - Flexman (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment on how to deal with project inactivity
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
The problem is that Hospitality Club does not really work anymore. But there hasn't been any official statment, because the creator(s) of the project just abandoned it. So, no one takes care about the portal anymore, since February 2021 the login did not work anymore, and since April 2022 the page is even offline. The service already lost its popularity in the years before, and there is no media coverage anymore. The result is, that there is no undisputed source which we could use for citation. I did add the information that the service is not functional anymore and used the Wayback Machine and some Uptime-Portal for citation, but this was considered as WP:OR. Otherwise the initiation was changed from "is" to "was" but without citation. So the question here is: Is it really WP:OR, and if yes, will we find another way to get more specific about the current situation of the project, or won't we be able to do any updates unless some media will report about this? - Flexman (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the main reason we prohibit original research is the need for verifiability, I don't think a brief statement about the site being offline would violate that. Use ((as of)) to track it, and it's easily verifiable by the fact that no one else would be able to reach the page either. We have articles on plenty of defunct websites, and don't need a gold-standard reliable source saying "this website is defunct" to call them such. However, I would avoid more detail than the website being down—e.g., its creator's abandonment, logins no longer working—unless those can be attributed to reliable sources. I trust your memory, but those are not verifiable in the same way a site being down is. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the site even is offline for 1 1/2 weeks now makes it a little bit easier to report that, although we have to watch if it stays like this. However, the discussion started when the site still was online, but not usable since the login didn't work. And in this case it is not a very satisfying solution to have to pretend that the service still is working and relevant. I can understand that the Wayback Machine is not a perfect provement since the site could have worked between the captures, although it is rather unlikely if there is no different capture in between. Otherwise if you just report that the Wayback Machine didn't capture any working login in that time interval, is it really WP:OR? - Flexman (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Flexman: Hey, I see that you did go ahead with the RfC! I will briefly sum up my thoughts below to inform other editors of my prior points.
Full disclosure: I could be considered involved, since I replied to the request for third opinion (3O) above regarding the same topic.
Arguments for inclusion (in my view):
The information is of potential benefit to the majority of readers, as the article revolves solely around Hospitality Club so any readers would reasonably be interested in knowing the status of functionality.
We don't need to list sources to know that the Pope is Catholic or that the sky is blue. It could be considered generally available knowledge if the date of the claim is included (e.g. "as of May 2, 2022..."), you might want to include an ((as of)) tag as others have said.
Arguments against inclusion (in my view):
There's the obvious, glaring 'problem' of WP:OR and lack of verifiability.
If there's no sources reporting on a service/site being down, it may not be WP:NOTABLE.
One could go either way in interpreting the guidelines and prior consensus of the community, and I don't think either option is egregious. Just my two cents though. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 00:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a nice summary of the problem, but what we'd need now is a decision. As far as I see now, we have
1 voice for mentioning that the site was disfunctional for more than a year and is offline now (me)
1 voice for mentioning that the site is offline (BDD)
1 undecided (if i understand you correctly)
1 person who does not help to find a solution in the discussion and shows disagreement via reverts instead.
So, the consent is to mention that the site is offline. Otherwise your decision can change majorities.
In genereal I think that this still is a problem because many projects (especially software projects) just lose relevance or get abandend and get no media coverage or official statemant afterwards. WP:OR makes sense but otherwise it's not optimal if you are not able to mention that a project is not working/obsolete. Flexman (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not need a decision 'now'. This is actually an interesting question. Not because it matters much for this particular article, but because it is liable to become a more significant one generally, as Wikipedia content gets older. It may well be that some form of policy change is needed, but meanwhile, please give this RfC time to do its job - which is to ask for outside input. It isn't uncommon for an RfC to run for a month.
Clearly it is in the best interest of readers to give some sort of indication in the article that the website appears to no longer be functioning, so it comes down to the best way to do it. A direct statement that it is offline is WP:OR, strictly speaking, but as I see it, as long as we make it clear that this is what Wikipedia contributors have found, rather than a definitive assertion that the website is defunct, WP:IAR would seem preferable. Or a change of policy, which if needed will have to be decided elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your useful input. I agree that this will become more significant as Wikipedia content gets older. Like I said I noticed many abandoned software projects. These sites often have a "latest release" date in the info block, so you'll notice there if the project is outdated. However for website projects, blogs etc. and maybe also non internet related things it will happen that they become abandoned and irrelevant, and it might be difficult to write about this if the rules are not clear. It might be interpretation if mentioning captures of sites like the Waybackmachine or some uptime-checkers really are WP:OR, but a change of policy might be worth discusing elsewhere.
Concerning this issue, I wasn't aware how long a RfC will run, so i'll wait. - Flexman (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally be content with BDD's suggestion of just mentioning the site is offline and not replacing present tense with past tense as it is currently I believe. This decreases the urgency for verifiability per WP:BLUE. I'd let the RfC run a bit longer to see if others still want to pitch in too. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 12:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added the Policy tag to this RfC as it clearly regards WP policy and its interpretation at this point. ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 12:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... I don't see that BDD made a clear statment to the issue with present or past tense, is it? Flexman (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Flexman: "and don't need a gold-standard reliable source saying 'this website is defunct' to call them such" ★AmaTALKCONTRIBS 00:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me this sounds like we can call the website/project defunct without needing a source if it is obvious anyway. - Flexman (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in this case I agree. 2ple (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]