re: Craig: The links are valid; how does one get this corrected? (...) "Thanks, I see the correction!"
this is an embarrassment for Wikipedia and for Jimmy for having allowed it (I must assume he's well aware of it) -- might just as well save themselves some time and trouble and just plain ask Craig what would he like the page to include and not include...
Delia
P.S. hmmm... I can't help but wonder if Craig "paid up" for Jimmy's help... (the way Rachel Marsden appears to have had...) D.
Showing posts with label Jimmy Wales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jimmy Wales. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Saturday, March 1, 2008
(valleywag) you are wasting your time Owen...
MORE: (16th comment)
That part is entirely their business as far as I can see: I believe they should have been able to end up together POST Jimmy's official involvement with her Wikipedia entry as a matter of personal freedom (but nothing should have been going on *while* he was officially involved --> this wasn't so if that transcript is not made up). D.
MORE: (14th comment)
re: "My understanding is that that exchange occurs later in the relationship"
yeah, that's the thing!: Jimmy said there was NO relationship while he was officially involved with the edits (that transcript contradicts his story -- well, *more* than just contradicts it... adds insult to injury since he is actually cracking jokes re: his conflict of interests; Valleywag pointed that out very well....) D.
MORE: (12 comment)
what's subtle about this, Seth?
"jimbo.wales: right so the way it is told now, hang on a second *let's actually do this right now* because the last thing I want to do is take a break from fucking your brains out all night to work on your wikipedia entry :)" [my emphasis]
Delia
P.S. I believed Jimmy until I saw this (his story was that whatever he had going was *post* his official involvement -- this proves otherwise -- IF it's not made-up, of course...)
P.P.S. now, if NOT subtle for you would mean that he would have had to just tell her out of the blue: "by the way, just so you know, I'd be so much more help to you with your Wikipedia entry if you would just sleep with me... I'd use my power and influence as much as I possibly could..." --> he didn't *have to* say it in these words, did he? He *showed* her by arguing in her favor and getting others to help, WHILE talking about having sex with her... this is NOT subtle to me...(but I could be wrong...) D.
STILL MORE: (10th comment) Seth: to me, trading edits for sex is the ONLY part that matters, what happened to her page *after* the break-up is not exactly Jimmy's doing (unless he continues to edit her page through proxies -- I doubt it -- , Rachel is just saying that he removed his protection so... it all went to hell... not at all unexpected) D.
EVEN MORE (8th comment): Seth, as I already told you (in a prior post here), I think Dave Winer got it right re: trading sex for edits (and this is the only part of the affair that is newsworthy, as far as I can see) *providing* Rachel didn't make the stuff up... and it looks like pretty much everybody thinks you just can't make this up...
Rachel's last post on Wikipedia (which got her banned, so she says) clarifies the issue even more:
"You couldn't have cared less about my Wikipedia entry until we started sleeping together, Jimmy. At that point, it was nicely cleaned up and taken care of through your proxies here on the site, as per your instructions (and it's not the first time an article has been cleaned up through a proxy, as per your orders...this kind of stuff, contrary to popular belief, doesn't just happen "magically" here on Wikipedia). Now that we're not sleeping together and since you so publicly broke up with my here on this website, the page about me has turned into a complete free-for-all."
http://valleywag.com/373520/waless-ex+girlfriend-on-wikipedia-edits-game-on-sweetheart
MORE (8th comment): Seth: well, it's a whole lot of stuff in that comment so I guess it wasn't easy to see what I meant. Here's something a lot more to the point (although it doesn't have the detail his other comment had):
Dave Winer: "They got a good story because Wikipedia, the publication that Wales runs, has rules that prevent people from editing stories they have an interest in. Wales was trading edits to Rachel Marsden's profile for sex. They got him, and had they left out the parts you don't like, it wouldn't have been clear that they did."
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/03/03/valleywagGotALegitStoryMik.html#p2
P.S. (9th comment) he is assuming those transcripts are real (as far as I can see nobody is debating that) D.
MORE: Seth's pointing out other issues, also... (4th comment)
Seth, I don't know if you've seen Dave Winer's take on this but I think it's the best around:
(55th comment to Arrington's TechCrunch entry):
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/02/when-will-we-have-our-first-valleywag-suicide/#comment-2014538
Delia
P.S. I do agree with what you are saying (that sounds pretty bad also) D.
EVEN MORE (comment 55): more detail from Dave Winer
MORE: yeah... unfortunately (for Jimmy) Dave is right! it's just that it wasn't Owen alone (that didn't seem enough to me) but Owen + Jordan is hard to dismiss... D.
UPDATE: well, looks like Jordan has the proof that this is newsworthy! (I actually gave Jimmy the benefit of a doubt and, absent proof to the contrary, believed him that whatever he had going was POST his official involvement and disclosed to Wikipedia administrators)
P.S. still, it would be nothing compared with bringing to light what look like Craig's dark secrets... (which could very well prove to be more than just newsworthy...). D.
.......
so Jimmy's personal life is a train wreck... that's probably true for half of the people around and I'm not at all sure you are not among them -- you want something that's not a dime a dozen? look into Craig's NAMBLA thing... (if you have the balls to get to the bottom of that you deserve to stand next to Stephen Colbert)
Delia
That part is entirely their business as far as I can see: I believe they should have been able to end up together POST Jimmy's official involvement with her Wikipedia entry as a matter of personal freedom (but nothing should have been going on *while* he was officially involved --> this wasn't so if that transcript is not made up). D.
MORE: (14th comment)
re: "My understanding is that that exchange occurs later in the relationship"
yeah, that's the thing!: Jimmy said there was NO relationship while he was officially involved with the edits (that transcript contradicts his story -- well, *more* than just contradicts it... adds insult to injury since he is actually cracking jokes re: his conflict of interests; Valleywag pointed that out very well....) D.
MORE: (12 comment)
what's subtle about this, Seth?
"jimbo.wales: right so the way it is told now, hang on a second *let's actually do this right now* because the last thing I want to do is take a break from fucking your brains out all night to work on your wikipedia entry :)" [my emphasis]
Delia
P.S. I believed Jimmy until I saw this (his story was that whatever he had going was *post* his official involvement -- this proves otherwise -- IF it's not made-up, of course...)
P.P.S. now, if NOT subtle for you would mean that he would have had to just tell her out of the blue: "by the way, just so you know, I'd be so much more help to you with your Wikipedia entry if you would just sleep with me... I'd use my power and influence as much as I possibly could..." --> he didn't *have to* say it in these words, did he? He *showed* her by arguing in her favor and getting others to help, WHILE talking about having sex with her... this is NOT subtle to me...(but I could be wrong...) D.
STILL MORE: (10th comment) Seth: to me, trading edits for sex is the ONLY part that matters, what happened to her page *after* the break-up is not exactly Jimmy's doing (unless he continues to edit her page through proxies -- I doubt it -- , Rachel is just saying that he removed his protection so... it all went to hell... not at all unexpected) D.
EVEN MORE (8th comment): Seth, as I already told you (in a prior post here), I think Dave Winer got it right re: trading sex for edits (and this is the only part of the affair that is newsworthy, as far as I can see) *providing* Rachel didn't make the stuff up... and it looks like pretty much everybody thinks you just can't make this up...
Rachel's last post on Wikipedia (which got her banned, so she says) clarifies the issue even more:
"You couldn't have cared less about my Wikipedia entry until we started sleeping together, Jimmy. At that point, it was nicely cleaned up and taken care of through your proxies here on the site, as per your instructions (and it's not the first time an article has been cleaned up through a proxy, as per your orders...this kind of stuff, contrary to popular belief, doesn't just happen "magically" here on Wikipedia). Now that we're not sleeping together and since you so publicly broke up with my here on this website, the page about me has turned into a complete free-for-all."
http://valleywag.com/373520/waless-ex+girlfriend-on-wikipedia-edits-game-on-sweetheart
MORE (8th comment): Seth: well, it's a whole lot of stuff in that comment so I guess it wasn't easy to see what I meant. Here's something a lot more to the point (although it doesn't have the detail his other comment had):
Dave Winer: "They got a good story because Wikipedia, the publication that Wales runs, has rules that prevent people from editing stories they have an interest in. Wales was trading edits to Rachel Marsden's profile for sex. They got him, and had they left out the parts you don't like, it wouldn't have been clear that they did."
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/03/03/valleywagGotALegitStoryMik.html#p2
P.S. (9th comment) he is assuming those transcripts are real (as far as I can see nobody is debating that) D.
MORE: Seth's pointing out other issues, also... (4th comment)
Seth, I don't know if you've seen Dave Winer's take on this but I think it's the best around:
(55th comment to Arrington's TechCrunch entry):
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/02/when-will-we-have-our-first-valleywag-suicide/#comment-2014538
Delia
P.S. I do agree with what you are saying (that sounds pretty bad also) D.
EVEN MORE (comment 55): more detail from Dave Winer
MORE: yeah... unfortunately (for Jimmy) Dave is right! it's just that it wasn't Owen alone (that didn't seem enough to me) but Owen + Jordan is hard to dismiss... D.
UPDATE: well, looks like Jordan has the proof that this is newsworthy! (I actually gave Jimmy the benefit of a doubt and, absent proof to the contrary, believed him that whatever he had going was POST his official involvement and disclosed to Wikipedia administrators)
P.S. still, it would be nothing compared with bringing to light what look like Craig's dark secrets... (which could very well prove to be more than just newsworthy...). D.
.......
so Jimmy's personal life is a train wreck... that's probably true for half of the people around and I'm not at all sure you are not among them -- you want something that's not a dime a dozen? look into Craig's NAMBLA thing... (if you have the balls to get to the bottom of that you deserve to stand next to Stephen Colbert)
Delia
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Jimmy puts Craig to shame...
Jimmy, via Valleywag: "I am 100 percent fully supportive of Wikipedia remaining just as it is: a charitable project. Period."
Delia
P.S. good to hear that, Jimmy:) ... D.
Delia
P.S. good to hear that, Jimmy:) ... D.
Monday, May 14, 2007
So... why aren't entrepreneur types denouncing Craig?
MORE: here's the paragraph I wanted you to see:
Jimmy, in the Orlando Sentinel, by way of popmatters.com
“Like Craig, I built Wikia to serve communities, and if we take care of them, they will build it into something big and money will be made, and that is fine” (fifth paragraph from bottom)
... well, I wouldn't be so sure...:) that people would be willing to just pitch in and build somebody else's empire... and it's certainly presumptuous to speak for them and declare that they would be "fine" with your being the one collecting the money from the "something big" they built...
get away from Craig, Jimmy! he's a bad influence... you've got plenty of money as it is... if you MUST make more start a completely unrelated thing (and do it straight and honest) -- it's really not worth it to tarnish your Wikipedia legacy for some money you don't need... D.
.............
They know what's going on -- they know it cannot be for real... that when you look at the fundamentals things just don't add up! My suspicion is that they figure ... why kill the golden goose if it may lay a golden egg on their lap also? “
Delia
P.S. I think we will see more and more Craig-like personas trying to cash in on the concept-- take a look at Gabe Rivera or even Jimmy Wales... (in the context of Wikia )
P.P.S. will there be some that will do it for real? I would hope so... the closest to this that I'm aware of is Jay Rosen (his long term financial plans for NewAssignment) D.
Jimmy, in the Orlando Sentinel, by way of popmatters.com
“Like Craig, I built Wikia to serve communities, and if we take care of them, they will build it into something big and money will be made, and that is fine” (fifth paragraph from bottom)
... well, I wouldn't be so sure...:) that people would be willing to just pitch in and build somebody else's empire... and it's certainly presumptuous to speak for them and declare that they would be "fine" with your being the one collecting the money from the "something big" they built...
get away from Craig, Jimmy! he's a bad influence... you've got plenty of money as it is... if you MUST make more start a completely unrelated thing (and do it straight and honest) -- it's really not worth it to tarnish your Wikipedia legacy for some money you don't need... D.
.............
They know what's going on -- they know it cannot be for real... that when you look at the fundamentals things just don't add up! My suspicion is that they figure ... why kill the golden goose if it may lay a golden egg on their lap also? “
Delia
P.S. I think we will see more and more Craig-like personas trying to cash in on the concept-- take a look at Gabe Rivera or even Jimmy Wales... (in the context of Wikia )
P.P.S. will there be some that will do it for real? I would hope so... the closest to this that I'm aware of is Jay Rosen (his long term financial plans for NewAssignment) D.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
oops... I goofed... (Wikipedia page on "craigslist")
MORE: I thought Craig suggested it because the reason for removal was COI (conflict of interest) and not that long ago a Wikipedian said things were removed and added without a proper rationale (that made me think of Craig's "suggestions" and editor EncMstr's actions)... but it appears that the website that has the interview is in a conflict of interest by attempting to have the link be included in the Wikipedia entry.... still... a good move for Wikipedia! (I would just be more impressed if they reconsidered how they handled Craig's attempts (with some success) to edit the Wikipedia pages on "craigslist" and "Craig Newmark") D.
well, although it's one of those groupieish isn't-Craig-just-perfect interview (in the sense that no real question is asked as thought there weren't any...), the Blau Exchange interview wasn't really Craig's suggestion... sorry!
Delia
P.S. it was all Jimmy's fault ;)... (the P. P.S. to that post) D.
well, although it's one of those groupieish isn't-Craig-just-perfect interview (in the sense that no real question is asked as thought there weren't any...), the Blau Exchange interview wasn't really Craig's suggestion... sorry!
Delia
P.S. it was all Jimmy's fault ;)... (the P. P.S. to that post) D.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Wikipedia page on "craigslist": millions in revenues back in 2004 --> NOT a "speculation"...
MORE: more recently, same kind of people have estimated profits to be in the tens of millions...(like $50-$70 at one point) and it seems that they keep going up at impressive rates (the places and things they charge for are increasing while the costs appear to stay about the same, no significant customer service or technical upgrading -- a hefty cash cow!) Let me know if you have the link! thanks! D.
(Craig confirmed them)
Wikipedia page on "craigslist": "Although the company does not disclose financial information, journalists have speculated [my emphasis] that its annual revenue approached $10 million in 2004."(fifth paragraph)
San Antonio Express-News, by way of redorbit.com: "Analysts have estimated that Craigslist, which has 18 employees, brings in $7 million to $10 million a year. Newmark says that's in the ballpark."(fifth paragraph)
Delia
P.S. If Craig would have been honest when he claimed he wanted to correct inaccuracies, he would have brought up this one also... But in any case, Wikipedia should have never allowed him to make "suggestions" in the first place... and Jimmy should have definitely stayed out of it...
P.P.S. aside for Jimmy: it would be nice if I could click on particular segments of a Wikipedia entry and a window with the information on who added that info and when would pop up (just a thought...) D.
(Craig confirmed them)
Wikipedia page on "craigslist": "Although the company does not disclose financial information, journalists have speculated [my emphasis] that its annual revenue approached $10 million in 2004."(fifth paragraph)
San Antonio Express-News, by way of redorbit.com: "Analysts have estimated that Craigslist, which has 18 employees, brings in $7 million to $10 million a year. Newmark says that's in the ballpark."(fifth paragraph)
Delia
P.S. If Craig would have been honest when he claimed he wanted to correct inaccuracies, he would have brought up this one also... But in any case, Wikipedia should have never allowed him to make "suggestions" in the first place... and Jimmy should have definitely stayed out of it...
P.P.S. aside for Jimmy: it would be nice if I could click on particular segments of a Wikipedia entry and a window with the information on who added that info and when would pop up (just a thought...) D.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
still... there is hope for Wikipedia...
re:" Ranma9617 : "I almost put an accuracy dispute tag on this, I've noticed that info has been added or removed without rationale in some cases and no one knows what's accurate or not"
Delia
P.S. let's hope they do something about it...
Delia
P.S. let's hope they do something about it...
Wikipedia page on "craigslist": the truth be damned, Jimmy helps Craig...
EVEN MORE: and you don't even have prostitution listed (not even on that long laundry list of yours): just "obscene material," which may suggest pornography (although you only list "child pornography"[my emphasis]) but not necessarily prostitution...
MORE: 05/04/07: Craig (or whoever else did this) please stop screwing with the links! yes, you do have prostitution listed as prohibited on the big laundry list of things most people never read... (there's nothing "prominent" about it... just a whole lot of stuff thrown in together to protect your behinds or so it seems...).
Changing the link I gave from the actual page for "pets" where you do have the "no animal sales or breading please" (as opposed to nothing of the kind for prostitution on the "erotic services" pages) to your laundry list of forbidden things was MORE than disingenuous -- it was cowardly!(at least have the decency to come out and say whatever it is that you want to say and don't just switch the links to fit your interests) D.
… revisited
re: "KSTP notes that while Craigslist does prominently encourage users to flag animal sales to discourage [[Backyard breederbackyard breeding]], it does not prominently encourage users to flag prostitution advertistements from adults"
Jimmy: "Prostitution crackdown - - rm unsourced claim"
How was this “unsourced”, Jimmy? The source given was a TV station program on craigslist on a given date (February, 27). As to what they are saying... it definitely has factual support! just check out the pages for pets (where attempts to sell animals -- pets -- are probable) and erotic services (as it is commonly known, the vast majority of those ads are offers for prostitution).
There is the “no animal sales or breading please" [the link I had here was to the "pets" page, it was changed to the general long list of forbidden items by... you guess who...] for pets and… nothing of the kind for prostitution…
Delia
P.S. I would have thought more of you if you would have helped the truth (instead of helping Craig…) D.
MORE: 05/04/07: Craig (or whoever else did this) please stop screwing with the links! yes, you do have prostitution listed as prohibited on the big laundry list of things most people never read... (there's nothing "prominent" about it... just a whole lot of stuff thrown in together to protect your behinds or so it seems...).
Changing the link I gave from the actual page for "pets" where you do have the "no animal sales or breading please" (as opposed to nothing of the kind for prostitution on the "erotic services" pages) to your laundry list of forbidden things was MORE than disingenuous -- it was cowardly!(at least have the decency to come out and say whatever it is that you want to say and don't just switch the links to fit your interests) D.
… revisited
re: "KSTP notes that while Craigslist does prominently encourage users to flag animal sales to discourage [[Backyard breederbackyard breeding]], it does not prominently encourage users to flag prostitution advertistements from adults"
Jimmy: "Prostitution crackdown - - rm unsourced claim"
How was this “unsourced”, Jimmy? The source given was a TV station program on craigslist on a given date (February, 27). As to what they are saying... it definitely has factual support! just check out the pages for pets (where attempts to sell animals -- pets -- are probable) and erotic services (as it is commonly known, the vast majority of those ads are offers for prostitution).
There is the “no animal sales or breading please" [the link I had here was to the "pets" page, it was changed to the general long list of forbidden items by... you guess who...] for pets and… nothing of the kind for prostitution…
Delia
P.S. I would have thought more of you if you would have helped the truth (instead of helping Craig…) D.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Craig's slip of the tongue?
Craig: "Craigslist is for the moment, but Wikipedia is for the ages"
(third paragraph under big letter "A")
absolutely! it will start collapsing when people wake up or the real thing comes around -- but an honest to goodness people$list would have no reason to end...
Delia
(third paragraph under big letter "A")
absolutely! it will start collapsing when people wake up or the real thing comes around -- but an honest to goodness people$list would have no reason to end...
Delia
Friday, February 16, 2007
please keep an eye on this for me! (Jimmy gets into the mix...)
EVEN MORE
MORE
yep! I thought that might happen...
the history pages for "craigslist" and "Craig Newmark" are the thing to watch...(those give you an up to date list of changes made to those articles by anybody)... and I hope you do! this should be pretty interesting! again, getting craigslist criticism that is TRUE (and verifiably so) off Wikipedia (especially if it is done by Jimmy himself) is the major concern here...
Is Jimmy "helping out" Craig? (they are said to be friends...) If so, shouldn't Jimmy have recused himself? I think so...
See you in a week or so!
Delia
P.S. I'll be gone house hunting... D.
MORE
yep! I thought that might happen...
the history pages for "craigslist" and "Craig Newmark" are the thing to watch...(those give you an up to date list of changes made to those articles by anybody)... and I hope you do! this should be pretty interesting! again, getting craigslist criticism that is TRUE (and verifiably so) off Wikipedia (especially if it is done by Jimmy himself) is the major concern here...
Is Jimmy "helping out" Craig? (they are said to be friends...) If so, shouldn't Jimmy have recused himself? I think so...
See you in a week or so!
Delia
P.S. I'll be gone house hunting... D.
Friday, February 9, 2007
changes to Wikipedia page on"craigslist"
Craig: "If it's expeditious, I can get help from Jimmy"(under "article errors") ... so Wikipedia is a great thing when it comes to others... (Craig has been prasing it for a very long time) but when it comes to himself and craigslist... it's just not expeditious enough!
Jimmy should just step in and do the changes he wants done! if he says so... it MUST be so! (like when he said users haven't asked for a reputation system, for instance... what's not clear about that?) -- he is the unquestionable authority on craigslist, isn't he? well... it works with the vast majority of media! why should Wikipedia be any different? refering to this, ostensibly as a joke, Craig was complaining that (for Wikipedia) he is not authoritative enough on himself...(this morning at the WeMedia conference)
Delia
P.S. BTW, to my pleasant surprise, my blog is part of the Wikipedia page on “Craig Newmark”! (under "external links") by way of my comment to his NYU speech – I hope it stays that way… I do think my blog gives good information people should be aware of … (although I think it's more relevant to “craigslist” than to “Craig Newmark”… oh well… I’m not that picky… thanks to… let’s see... who was it? there! 74.73.167.40 ; also thanks to 69.17.103.69 for adding the "craig$list.com" article, which was my inspiration for people$list) D.
Jimmy should just step in and do the changes he wants done! if he says so... it MUST be so! (like when he said users haven't asked for a reputation system, for instance... what's not clear about that?) -- he is the unquestionable authority on craigslist, isn't he? well... it works with the vast majority of media! why should Wikipedia be any different? refering to this, ostensibly as a joke, Craig was complaining that (for Wikipedia) he is not authoritative enough on himself...(this morning at the WeMedia conference)
Delia
P.S. BTW, to my pleasant surprise, my blog is part of the Wikipedia page on “Craig Newmark”! (under "external links") by way of my comment to his NYU speech – I hope it stays that way… I do think my blog gives good information people should be aware of … (although I think it's more relevant to “craigslist” than to “Craig Newmark”… oh well… I’m not that picky… thanks to… let’s see... who was it? there! 74.73.167.40 ; also thanks to 69.17.103.69 for adding the "craig$list.com" article, which was my inspiration for people$list) D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)