Sunday, March 11, 2007

(Wikipedia) true (and verifiably so) craigslist criticism is removed again...

re: "What is seldon told is how one sided and tyranical Craigslist can be. Harmless posts are removed for no reason while others that are clearly offensive or spam remain. The online flagging and staff removal is more like children picking out others they don't like as opposed to an organisation of grown men trying to do business in the real world. Trying to get an answer from Craigslist staff as to why a post is removed is like talking to a wall." Revision as of 20:25, 9 March 2007 (edit) (undo) (Talk)

shouldn't editor EncMstr (re: revert unattributable addition by (talk) to last version by JennaMarie85) give ANY willing editor of the "craigslist" entry the same deal he offered Craig? (EncMstr: "In your case [meaning Craig's case], I'd be happy to incorporate any changes for which I can find a reliable published source, or remove material for which I can't find something you point out is in error"; under "proper etiquette")

That would just be fair, no? By that criteria, he should have done some research and found out the statements above are pretty much true (a more neutral phrasing would have been in order but the facts talked about appear to be true -- just search feedback / flag / help)


No comments: