Jump to content

Talk:Fastly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:PAID Disclosure

[edit]

I'm a Fastly employee that has been allowed to create this article on company time so I have added a WP:PAID disclosure; however, my contributions are not at the behest of my employer, and I will cease editing the article directly if/when the article is accepted through the WP:AfC process. --Sykes83 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Competitors section has undue weight

[edit]

Hola! An editor with undisclosed COI (the CMO of a competitor) added a large competitors list to the page (and for some reason marked it as a minor edit, although I'm not sure why). The content itself seems reasonable, but it now takes up a quarter of the page giving it possibly undue weight. I'm hoping someone might consider reviewing to see if the page would be improved if the list was given less weight. -- Sykes83 (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 25-JUN-2018

[edit]

The question here seems to be whether or not the person adding the information has a conflict of interest, which would require the input of editors at WP:COIN, which is where you should take your concerns. If that editor does have a COI, then their changes should be reviewed. Until that has been ascertained, I'm not sure what else can be done with content that you've described as seeming to be "reasonable". If you have references demonstrating that these are not competitors, then please provide it. That same challenge goes out to the editor who added the information, which I will note in the article with a citation needed template.  spintendo  20:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new section: Acquisitions

[edit]

I saw someone recently added a Fastly acquisition to the History. I have recently added a list of Acquisitions to the Cloudflare page, perhaps we could also add an acquisitions section here? If anyone is interested to help, please help me compile a list... Signal Sciences, etc. Based on what I have seen on the Salesforce page (using that as a template but open to anything else), we would also want to add the month and year of the acquistiion. Nickgray (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting Acquisitions section draft for review

[edit]

Hi there! Up front, I should disclose my conflict of interest: I'm a Fastly employee, which is why I'm using the edit request system as opposed to directly editing the company's article myself. In the post above this one, User:Nickgray suggested creating an Acquisitions section. I thought this was a good idea, so I wrote a section draft:

This draft covers all the company's significant acquisitions over the past few years, and explains, wherever possible, what the company Fastly acquired was known for at the time of the purchase and the way(s) that company's assets were integrated into Fastly's operation.

I don't want to get ahead of myself, but I should note that if some form of this draft is approved and an Acquisitions section is added to the article, whoever adds the text will probably also want to delete the brief passages about Signal Sciences, Glitch, and Domainr from the History section. But we can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, I invite independent editors to review my draft and let me know what they think. Thank you! Jagger at Fastly (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ping User:QuietCicada, since they recently made a helpful edit to the article. I want to be clear: no obligation on your part, Cicada. I know you're editing on your own time. Just checking to see if you'd like to review this request. Thanks! Jagger at Fastly (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jagger at Fastly:, I honestly hate having acquisition sections. The information is better formatted under history, creating subheadings based on years if necessary. Let me know if you would like me to take a closer look as I would be glad to clean up and implement what can be done. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:CNMall41, this is very helpful feedback. I think I've got an idea about what to do, but it'll take a bit of work on my end. I'll be back once that's done. Thank you for getting involved and talk soon. Jagger at Fastly (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to this thread to propose a full History section revision, which contains a subsection for Acquisitions, which I believe is a good idea because there are quite a few of them. (But I'm open to changing that, if editors think there's a better way!) In addition to gathering the acquisitions under their own heading, I've done some light reorganizing and added information about a few notable events in the company's history.
This draft is lengthy, so to make things a little easier for editors, I'm going to use the comparison function. Click the dropdown below to see my History draft contrasted against the current section:
Here is what the History would look like if my draft were accepted with no alterations:
I invite User:CNMall41 to take a look at this; I hope it's more in line with their thinking about how the article should be structured. Other independent editors may jump in as well. Thank you! Jagger at Fastly (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per a chat I just had with User:CNMall41 on their user Talk page, I'm going to revise my proposal further, unifying the whole History section and sprinkling the acquisitions wherever they fit in chronologically. Here's a comparison of the current History vs. my draft:
And here's what my draft would look like if it were added to the article without any changes:
Alright, I think this draft is in a good place now, but it's obviously not up to me to decide. If anybody has feedback or further thoughts, please let me know! Thank you, Jagger at Fastly (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this request has been dormant for two months now, I'm going to invite User:CNMall41 to revisit it. I'll also tag in a couple editors who have made helpful contributions to the Fastly article in the past: User:EastThermopolis and User:TollyH. Obviously, none of these independent editors should feel obligated to review what's above. I'm just searching for folks who might be interested. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes a look! Jagger at Fastly (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Please use your most recent draft; thank you for your patience. Rusalkii (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting Operation section draft for editor review

[edit]

Hello again! It seems like my request above has stalled since I last revised it. I worry that it's gotten a little too complicated for new editors to wrap their heads around. So I'm going to leave it be for a bit and move ahead by proposing a few updates to the Operation section. There are some new aspects of the company's services that aren't currently covered in this section, so I did some research and did my best to substantiate new claims. I also sought to fix some existing sourcing issues by trimming content and locating a handful of new reliable sources. Below, you can see the current section vs. my draft:

And here is what the section would look like if all my suggested edits were made:

As ever, I'm happy to discuss my proposed edits with independent editors and adjust the copy above as needed. Thanks! Jagger at Fastly (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MarketBeat analysis feels like a regurgitation of the Fastly earnings call, I would avoid using this source.
The 2021 outage seems to be given undue weight, compare with Amazon Web Services#Significant service outages. I don't think paring this down would be biased towards Fastly.
The last paragraph on edge observability and channel partner programs doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please consider if the majority of our readers are interested in the availability of Fastly products to channel partners or even can comprehend that sentence. Brandon (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, User:Brandon! Based on your feedback, I've made a few adjustments to the draft. I replaced the MarketBeat article with a Silicon Angle one that I hope is a little stronger. I also trimmed the outage paragraph slightly. In the last paragraph, I got rid of the edge observability sentence but kept the passage about Fastly's partner program. This was a rather significant expansion of our services and I think it's written in a way that's legible to a general audience. Your mileage may vary, though.
Here's the revised section draft:
Really appreciate your help with this. If you've got additional thoughts, please let me know! Jagger at Fastly (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thank you for your patience. I have removed one additional sentence, on "resiliency and redundancy efforts" post outage. Of the two sources given, one is the company itself and the other is essentially an interview with the CEO. For something like this, I'd want to see independent coverage - otherwise, it's just the normal "we are taking measures to fix this" type verbiage any company is going to release after a major incident. Rusalkii (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the first paragraph is highly misleading, as the source [1] describes what amounts to a Web cache for language-model APIs. The phrasing of the sentence implies that Fastly is using AI to improve network transfer rate, which is an unsourced claim. RhubarbKnife (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section on June 8 Outage

[edit]

The general public would be most aware of Fastly though the June 8 outage, which is the only time Fastly made headlines in major news outlets. Considering the severity and impact of the outage, which made international headlines in major media outlets, I think this deserves a dedicated section. At the very least it should be a subheading in the history.

It appears that references to the June 8 outage have been gradually erased from this article over time, which I suspect may be due to editors with undeclared conflicts of interest (COI).

Considering that this event was notable enough to be covered by several major news sites, as well as industry news sites and market news sites, it is very clearly one of the most notable events in the company's history. Omitting this event from the "History" section is suspiciously biased. The three sentences in the "Operation" section do not provide adequate detail about this event.

If we compare with Amazon Web Services#Significant service outages, perhaps the best compromise here would be a "Significant service outages" subsection within the "History" page, which right now seems to be written for investors rather than the general public, who would be more interested in the events that they remember experiencing firsthand.

Sources on the June 8 Outage:

- Fastly: https://www.fastly.com/blog/summary-of-june-8-outage/

- Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/fastly-blames-software-bug-major-global-internet-outage-2021-06-09/

- BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57413224

- The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/09/fastly-says-single-customer-triggered-bug-that-caused-mass-outage

- CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/08/fastly-outage-internet-what-happened.html

- Euronews: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/06/09/fastly-outage-what-caused-it-and-do-internet-cdns-have-too-much-power

- Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/6/8/major-media-websites-go-down-worldwide

- The Register: https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/05/fastly_ceo_outage/

- Cisco ThousandEyes: https://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/inside-the-fastly-outage-analysis-and-lessons-learned

- Kentik: https://www.kentik.com/analysis/fastly-outage-knocks-major-websites-offline/

- S&P Global: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/fastly-outage-leads-global-internet-disruptions-for-week-of-june-5-64990984 82.36.161.73 (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can some independent editors and wikipedians kindly review above ask as well as recent revert from same user @82.36.161.73 , for possible conflict of WP:NPOV ...
The revert overlaps with apparent conditions of WP:PROMOTION but would not a template/improvement edit to reconsider MOS:PUFFERY be more appropriate than completely deleting said content? Nisingh.8 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content which I deleted was promotional material for a recently announced minor feature. It is my opinion that this could be bias through undue weight WP:UNDUE. Rewording this promotional content would not address the issue of weight WP:WEIGHT.
It is my opinion that the international media coverage of the June 8th outage is evidence of the significant public interest in this event WP:SUBSTANTIAL.
The history section reads as a timeline of significant events, so the omission of the event which was most widely covered in international media could be misleading, even when included in a later section WP:STRUCTURE. 82.36.161.73 (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]