Monday, November 16, 2009

is Michael Arrington right? Did Craig Newmark advise Wikipedia to have fund raising ads?


thanks, Seth!

we've talked about this in the past and I still believe he could have *sold it* before turning non-profit and there would have probably been no Wikipedia today.

I continue to believe he deserves respect for this, for NOT doing what Craig did, making it a *for profit* and keeping people laboring and in the dark as to what's really going on.

Sure, he's not a "purist" (e.g. I suppose he could have donated all his honoraria to Wikipedia, although it did take a lot of his private time to get to the point where he would be offered anything of the kind) but, as far as I'm concerned, there is really no comparison between what he did and what Craig did.


P.S. and no! I don't believe Wikipedia should have any ads on it and that banner ad *is* an ad blocked by ad-blocking software

thanks for this link --> very on point! D>


*You* can do better than that, Jimmy... You still have my respect for having made and kept Wikipedia a non-profit, (a huge contrast with craigslist) but you are wrong on this one... and if this was indeed Craig's advice that you/Wikipedia took, I'd do without such adviser... ~Delia

P.S. keep it open and honest (it's not worth messing it up after you did the right thing for such a long time) D.


I think you are right on this one: it *is* an ad! (a fund raising ad for Wikipedia). Even more obvious than what were, in my opinion, ads for Skype on craigslist -- ostensibly because Craig Newmark *just liked* Skype...-- but I definitely wondered if craigslist was getting paid by Skype for having those links on the site (at the time, when the Skype links were introduced, craigslist was claiming to derive benefits *mostly* from paid ads but has never clarified what other sources of revenue have been). Even if craigslist wasn't getting paid for it, those links were still, in effect, a heck of a lot of ads for Skype!


Saturday, November 14, 2009

craigslist & CDA immunity: isn't craigslist co-creator of those ads given that it now screens them?

EVEN MORE: TWITTER: craigslist & DMA immunity: isn't craigslist co-author of those ads given that it now screens them? ( ) any idea? ~Delia half a minute ago from web


sorry about the delay... just posted it! D.

----- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/11/15 19:24:00
Subject: Re: Re: RE: digital media blog

You are welcome to post our exchange. I will comment on the issues you raise in my blog shortly

From: dperiod
To: Johnson, David D.
Sent: Sun Nov 15 16:11:05 2009
Subject: Re: RE: digital media blog

the fact that as a result of mounting pressure from AGs, craigslist decided not only to change the name of the category from "erotic" to "adult" but also to *screen the ads prior to publication* (manual review): here is the info in the Boston Globe, for instance:

and here is the post on my blog talking about it:



P.S. is it ok to post our email exchanges on my blog? (it would all go in the body of the entry so anybody reading my blog will see your comments -- has worked well in the past, especially if the views differ) D.

----- Original message -----
Sent: 2009/11/15 12:35:04
Subject: Re: RE: digital media blog

Delia: What major change are you referring to? Regards, David Johnson

From: dperiod []
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 12:50 AM
To: Johnson, David D.
Subject: digital media blog


I found your post re: Dart v. Craigslist helpful but believe it fails to take into consideration a major change in craigslist's involvement in the process of creating those ads. I thought you might want to comment.



It certainly appears to be the case! by screening the ads, craigslist now provides *direct assistance* to the users with finalizing the content of those ads prior to publication... (1st tip on how to "stay on the good side of the CDA and criminal law")


PS. I'll see if David Johnson would like to comment on this. D.