Talk:webinar

6,380,000 hits on google; 59 hits on print.google.com. --Stranger 18:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

From rfd page

This word is in reasonably wide use, but I didn't even try to include any citations and it's similar in spirit and origin to "e-rights" and so forth, so I thought I'd save everyone the trouble and add it here immediately. -dmh 7 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

keep: I've heard it used routinely, and the original contributor saw it in a solicitation from a college/university. -dmh 7 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

• Delete. no sources given. Eclecticology 04:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Are we making a general rule that every single entry must give sources? If not, just what rule are you proposing? May I ask your personal opinion as to whether this term is actually used? -dmh 15:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really; only the ones that are challenged, and the words found in an ordinary dictionary are not likely to be challenged. Like Wikipedia we need to develop standards of verifiability to be credible. Eclecticology 18:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but we also need to keep in mind that it hurts our credibility to continually challenge words that are in fact in use. Which this one is. Or were the results of your investigation different? I think the core bone of contention, in this as in so many other cases in the past, is whether the challenger has any obligations. The typical pattern has been

1. Someone puts up a word.
2. Someone doesn't like it and challenges it.
3. Someone else puts up citations.
4. (recently) The citations are challenged, if the original challenger really doesn't like the word.

• • • I'm finding step 4 particularly troublesome. If it's rare, I'm much more willing to put up citations in response to a challenge. In that case, I take step 2 as "this really needs more research". I would rather have that be RFC than RFD, but I can live with it. With step 4 happening all the time, step 2 starts to look like "I don't want this word in wiktionary and I will make an active effort to block it." If this is going to be the way going forward, it's harder to see the point in doing step 3.
    • I would be much happier if the challenger felt obliged to do two minutes worth of searching before going to step 2, and felt obliged to accept a response to step 3 as is, unless there is a clear flaw. This last is probably your intent as well, and there is a separate issue of what constitutes valid support. I think the "published sources only" bar just makes things difficult without necessarily improving quality, and that criteria like independence etc., applied regardless of the actual medium, stand a much better chance. -dmh 16:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted. In this case the citations weren't challenged because none were provided. Eclecticology 01:23:12, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
• Deleted again. Eclecticology 22:23:28, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

• • And yet, it remains in use. Funny, that. -dmh 21:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I keep putting this well-formed definition of a well-attested word back up, and yet somehow it keeps getting deleted. Could the person continually deleting it please explain the reasoning behind this, preferably with reference to a previously agreed-upon policy? -dmh 14:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Hi, I posted this here in the first place. I may be a little out of my depths, being a Wikipedian and all, but don't you folks Google test words to see if they're in use? After all, this one gets over 7,180,000 hits,[1] including over 20 sponsored links, meaning that in 20 different instances, some marketing person at the requisite company said, "hey, it would make good business for us to pay money so that people searching the internet for a webinar will be led to our website." I clicked the first non-ad cite that came up, and it presents an article titled "How to Host a Successful Webinar" purportedly posted on February 17, 2004.[2]. Cheers! --BD2412 14:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That was my thinking too, of course, but we've been using this one as a test case in a merry little war over page deletion policy (which is why the original RFD is under my name, but by now that's too long a story to go into). More seriously, see WT:CFI for the full rundown on why Google testing is not the whole story, though it certainly is a significant part of the story. -dmh 03:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted again. The issue is still about who has the responsibility to cite sources to make an entry verifiable. Eclecticology 04:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Reinstated. There are no meaningful challenges, and therefore the entry is kept. It's not the submitter's problem if someone challenging a term can't be bothered to do a rudimentary search. Challengers are expected to do their homework, and if not, not demand it of others.
  • This has been the status quo for months. Not only is there no consensus to change, there are specific and clearly presented objections. Further, particular terms have been quietly reinstated by otherwise neutral parties, further indicating that the proposed change is not widely accepted. The Wiki dictum of "be bold" does not apply in such cases. Had the first unilateral efforts to impose a new policy been widely taken up, there would be no issue. -dmh 23:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion from the rfd page, and added it to rfv since that approach now has a reasonable time limit. Eclecticology 16:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

---