Talk:Steven Bartlett (businessman)

Content removal

I have once again removed content that was not actually about the article's subject in this diff. Neither referenced article actually mentioned Bartlett himself. The relevant Wikipedia essay here is Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. As for the unsubstantiated comment that this content is "actively monitored and censored" by folk close to the article' subject, that veers toward aspersion, and on that basis I have removed it as well. /wiae /tlk 16:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hancock Podcast

Does this really merit inclusion? He interviewed Matt Hancock on his podcast and The Telegraph said it was 'as candid as it was awkward'. So what? Were there some significant consequences of this? Else why is it included? LastDodo (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating Critics into Main Body

Ideally coverage of a subject should be balanced across an article rather than confining criticism to a separate section. If future editors on this page could ensure that they integrate positive, negative, and neutral content into the main body of the article rather than sectioning it out that would be great. Boredintheevening (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Work for him? This website isn't for marketing. Would you just blend all the Michael Jackson facts, good... or very bad, into one lump of an article?

If you could stop trying to gatekeep Wikipedia, that would be great. Charliepenandink (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not gatekeeping, I am repeating a commonly followed rule of thumb for editors see: WP:CRIT. I agree, this website is not for marketing or promotional content. That is why you'll see that a lot of my edits involve removing promotional content and ensuring a balance of perspectives. The article for Michael Jackson, which you reference, is actually a great example of this as it successfully blends attention to his achievements and the allegations against him. Boredintheevening (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. One regrets mentioning Jackson as an example: he clearly has many fans that bizarrely put their collective heads in the sand when it came to his rape crimes. After looking at the talk pages and judging by the weird way that horrific abuse is buried in the article under sub-sub-headings, some input for the article possibly came from some of these “fans”... Bartlett should of course also definitely not be thought of in the same way.

Still, let's be honest - marketing CEOs aren't the most trustworthy of people... Barlett's podcast is weirdly peopled with suspicious types like anti-vax "experts" flogging dodgy snake oil books, pseudoscientists etc.. I mean, spend a few minutes looking up some of these characters - although one already suspects you know this, for reasons that will become clear. One may be wrong though...

“Social Chain” had many twitter accounts that stole content like jokes from other accounts: Bartlett said this was just a laugh, and maintained that tweets and jokes aren't worth much, notwithstanding the fact they were literally monetising tweets...

It was basically a link farming & content scraping business. Nothing particularly noble. His staff were teens, new influencers, some of whom who were easily manipulated.

These "visible CEO" people are often grifters, people like Alan Sugar (who sold cheap tat, but pivoted into property), Trump etc, they're people that greatly exaggerate their wealth as it's good for their profile. I'm not the only person that puts people like Bartlett into this bracket: he got a couple of million for Social Chain when it was sold early, but the further, later sales of course somehow all look like it's him that's getting the sale money. It's the fake-it-until-you-make-it approach. He has a brand image, so naturally will exaggerate his worth, just like Trump and all these other people, on Youtube, buggering about with algorithms, shilling for whatever fake medical author or conspiracy theorist has turfed up, just like Jordan Petersen, just like Russell Brand, all of these people, selling brands and packaging that with chat.

One gets that's it's hustle culture, but it all adds up: the misleading nutrition adverts, using bots and influencer accounts to send out out Thunderclap messages all at once promoting something (a practice now frowned upon, and in breach of legislation), possibly exploiting influencers who didn't know better, massively over exaggerating worth... In my opinion, these kind of figures should not be looked up to. We shouldnt just take what they present on face value.

Tthere's a Times article with more detail on how a lot of the perception of his "success" is built on overstating, overemphasising and embellishing worth. That would all be OK, hustle, sure, no problem, but the issue with this is the fact that young entrepreneurs will be getting a false and possibly unattainable goal in their head when they look to him for "advice", in any self-help book he might be promoting.

So yes, the idea that somebody like Bartlett therfore wouldn't have a vested interest in polishing up their wikipedia page is at best ridiculously naive, or at worst actually just stupid. Charliepenandink (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

I checked a bunch of related articles about WP:BLP, so no articles include the Reception section (that section is included on separate podcast pages). I'll also present some examples from which I consulted: Joe Rogan - The Joe Rogan Experience; Andrew Santino - Mixology and such examples could be added endlessly!

For those editors who are trying to make any accusations, I have no COI and am free to edit wikipedia in my own way, as long as I respect wikipedia policies. GalianoP3 (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just asserting you don't have a COI doesn't mean you don't have one. I'm not fooled by your dog and pony show of mixing your editing of this article with vandal fighting. Nobody writes about people like this unless they are getting paid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also MrBeast#Public_image_and_influence for similar content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your message seems to be extremely rude, so everyone can use their free time in wikipedia as they please! All the best... GalianoP3 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]