Talk:Kaltura

Here is my opinion so far. I'll do a more throughout once-over when I have time, and of course you may want to get the opinion of others.

The first paragraph is very confusing. I'm still not really sure if Kaltura is the name of the software, the company, or what. The first paragraph should only explain two things: 1) what the subject of the article is, and 2) why it's notable. It needs rewriting. Put the other stuff, if it's really necessary, in the article itself.

Of your references, two of them are good. [1] is a blog, and therefore isn't really a good reference. Put it in your external links. [2] is very good, it helps establish the notability of the software. [3] doesn't really establish anything. External links. [4] is kind of weak in my eyes, but it does help to back up the notability claim. Also, try using this: [5] as a source.

Pare down the external links. You have too many. Your external links should be information that isn't a source, but helps readers gather more info on the subject. A link to the company's home page should be top on the list, and a few product reviews or blog clips belong down here too. I haven't gone through all your external links yet, but see if some can be used as sources. If you get info from it or use it to establish notability, it should be a reference.

Finally, it still needs a little bit of rewriting. I'll see what I can do with it when I have more time, but the language could be more neutral. I get the impression you're trying to promote the company. If you have a conflict of interest (you work for the company or are best buds with the CEO), it's probably a good ides to disclose it. It doesn't stop you from making the article, but it does put what you say under a very strict microscope, and if you don't disclose it, people will figure it out and pretty much discount anything you say as "advertising". If you disclose it, you get a little more benefit of the doubt. Not fair, but the way it is.

--UsaSatsui (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Per request I have rewritten the article. Its still very rough and since I didn't actually visit the site or anything, I may have missed a few things. The idea is to distill the basic facts from the hyperbole. We don't need to know who the officers of the company are unless they are notable in themselves - the company website can host that material. Sourcing is still a little too dependant on non-reliable sources and this still needs a good copy-edit as I have only done a rough job as my time was limited. Off couse, since this is a wiki you can just revert me or tinker with what I have done. I hope this helps. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Basic company data

The article was still missing some fundamental information which the reader should expect in an encyclopedia article about a software company:

• (Intended) business model
• Number of employees
• Revenue and profits (if applicable already)
• Ownership

I tried to add a little (e.g. the date of foundation and the names of the founders, and the number of employees given in the 2007 TechCrunch article, which might be outdated by now), but there is more to be done. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure would be nice to have an update!

Am very excited about the promise inherent in Kaltura's tools. But how do things stand today (Aug 21 2009)? The mediawiki plugin is no longer supported, but there is talk of integrating the tools directly into ... wikipedia? ...mediawiki? I feel rather urgent about this as I'd like to use this in my classroom-- the semester is upon us! 130.184.251.50 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How to post a video to Wikipedia

Please, can you exploit this ? --Béotien lambda (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of "Kaltura"?

Does anyone know the origin of the word "Kaltura"? It doesn't appear to be a word in any particular language, although it could be a twist on culture (or kultur). I think it would be a good addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff.geurts (talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

= Kaltura makes free code software

The web-based software Kaltura develops is free code software, under the GNU AGPL. It seems to me that this is notable, and should be mentioned somewhere on the page. I'm presuming this is meant to be an article on the Kaltura company (due to the use of a company infobox). Should be there a separate page for the software, and disambiguation statements at the top of each page referring to the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

References