... does some more digging D.
(Mozilla help: (a hefty cash cow) Valleywag's Owen)
Showing posts with label Owen Thomas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Owen Thomas. Show all posts
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
(valleywag): come on Owen, you can do much better than that...
MORE
...
I know you can:) -- do some more digging of your own, will you?
Delia
P.S. netvet has a great hint for you!
P.P.S. you also appear to have missed Craig talking about monetization! as just being in tension with "community feel" (3.42) --> whatever happened with "we are a community service and only do what the community asks as to do?" D.
...
I know you can:) -- do some more digging of your own, will you?
Delia
P.S. netvet has a great hint for you!
P.P.S. you also appear to have missed Craig talking about monetization! as just being in tension with "community feel" (3.42) --> whatever happened with "we are a community service and only do what the community asks as to do?" D.
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
Friday, January 4, 2008
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Owen's story
just so you don't get distracted by the last comments by Seth on Dan Gillmor's blog, here's a good summary of Owen's story (the opinion is a bit off, I'll explain later):
"My only point was to mention that they lied, outright lied, when they said they didn't benefit financially from the eBay transaction, and that they acted in poor character when they decided to malign the co-founded Phillip Knowlton, who did nothing to deserve this treatment. Phillip walked away with a lot of money, but he was also demonized, by people whom he had formerly trusted. And again, as was reported above, the only reason he sold was because he was being squeezed out." (comment by Valleygurl in Valleywag)
the thing is that, as I said on Dan Gillmor's blog... if we go by what Craig said on his blog, on the issue of having profited from the transaction, he didn't straight out lie... was he vague and ambiguous, which resulted in having even seasoned journalists believe he didn't profit financially? -- absolutely! and that's nothing new for Craig...(it seems to be his trademark -- he appears to be extremely good with ambiguity: things just "happen" to click in his interest, over and over and over... the chance that would just happen seems to be minute) ... that's another reason why I found Owen's story quite plausible...
however, on the issue of Phillip Knowlton's part in the affair, Vallygurl would be correct... craigslist was way more than just vague and ambiguous: it demonised somebody they temselves squeezed out, somebody that as a consequence had no choice but to sell...
and the real straight out lie seems to be the "symbolic ownership" (no dollar value) Craig talks about... which is at the crux of Craig's whole story (as we know today, craigslist was profitable at the time -- I don't think that was publicly known in 2004 when Craig told his story)
Delia
P.S. keep in mind that Owen's story does NOT come with proof attached (but then, neither does Craig's ...)
P.P.S. also, as far as I'm concerned, bringing to light the truth about things other publications got wrong is the redeeming value of tabloids such as Valleywag... D.
"My only point was to mention that they lied, outright lied, when they said they didn't benefit financially from the eBay transaction, and that they acted in poor character when they decided to malign the co-founded Phillip Knowlton, who did nothing to deserve this treatment. Phillip walked away with a lot of money, but he was also demonized, by people whom he had formerly trusted. And again, as was reported above, the only reason he sold was because he was being squeezed out." (comment by Valleygurl in Valleywag)
the thing is that, as I said on Dan Gillmor's blog... if we go by what Craig said on his blog, on the issue of having profited from the transaction, he didn't straight out lie... was he vague and ambiguous, which resulted in having even seasoned journalists believe he didn't profit financially? -- absolutely! and that's nothing new for Craig...(it seems to be his trademark -- he appears to be extremely good with ambiguity: things just "happen" to click in his interest, over and over and over... the chance that would just happen seems to be minute) ... that's another reason why I found Owen's story quite plausible...
however, on the issue of Phillip Knowlton's part in the affair, Vallygurl would be correct... craigslist was way more than just vague and ambiguous: it demonised somebody they temselves squeezed out, somebody that as a consequence had no choice but to sell...
and the real straight out lie seems to be the "symbolic ownership" (no dollar value) Craig talks about... which is at the crux of Craig's whole story (as we know today, craigslist was profitable at the time -- I don't think that was publicly known in 2004 when Craig told his story)
Delia
P.S. keep in mind that Owen's story does NOT come with proof attached (but then, neither does Craig's ...)
P.P.S. also, as far as I'm concerned, bringing to light the truth about things other publications got wrong is the redeeming value of tabloids such as Valleywag... D.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
(Valleywag) Owen brings me back from the break...
just a quick note: you sound like a smart guy, Owen;)...
P.S. I'll have plenty of commentary on this when I get back for good at the end of my break. D.
P.S. I'll have plenty of commentary on this when I get back for good at the end of my break. D.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
(Valleywag) Owen shows promise...
re: Owen Thomas: "Some joke that the classifieds site run by Craig Newmark is itself almost not-for-profit"
(7th and 8th line)
"Just as Craigslist has sucked out the profit from all kinds of businesses, its foundation is going to suck out the profit made off of nonprofits"
(21, 22nd and 23rd line)
Delia
(7th and 8th line)
"Just as Craigslist has sucked out the profit from all kinds of businesses, its foundation is going to suck out the profit made off of nonprofits"
(21, 22nd and 23rd line)
Delia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)