(Wikipedia page on "Craig Newmark") God god! Craig is deciding what links are valid?

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.

Wikipedia page on "Craig Newmark": is Craig's actual sexual orientation relevant to the topic?

again... he made it a public matter when he talked about it to the press; it's certainly of interest to the public if he lied about it...

the Wikipedia editor's position is bizarre... I mean, not having a reliable source would have been a perfectly good reason at this point but keeping the whole issue of Craig having lied about it - if this is what's going on -- off Wikipedia because... well... he's known for founding "craigslist"! and how would having lied about his sexual orientation help?*lol* well, it would actually hurt! both Craig's image and the image of craigslist... but what is Wikipedia? a PR-service for those profiled?

re: (under "sexual preference") It's hard to see that help the article, even if sourced. He's best known as the founder of craigslist; how would his sexual orientation benefit that? —EncMstr 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC) -- EncMstr

Delia

Wikipedia page on "craigslist": misleading statment (sounds like PR...)

Rocksanddirt: "As of June 2007, there have been no substantive changes to the usefulness or non-advertising nature of the site (still no banner adds, still only charging for a few services to businesses)."

yeah, right... the locations where craigslist charges a fee have increased dramatically (there have been a series of cities added to the list since 2004...) and jobs is no longer the only category where a fee must be paid to advertise...

Delia

P.S. and of course a dramatic increase in the money that craigslist appears to pocket was a direct result of these changes... and the trend gives no sign of slowing down...

P.P.S. Rocksanddirt's Wikipedia user page sounds suspicious to me... D.

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.

Wikipedia page on "craigslist": some of Craig's "suggestions" are removed...

UPDATE (aka errata -- please read!)

as I said: there is hope for Wikipedia!

Delia

P.S. same thing for the Wikipedia page on "Craig Newmark" D.

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...

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.

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

(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)71.129.59.44 (Talk)

shouldn't editor EncMstr (re: revert unattributable addition by 71.129.59.44 (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)

Delia

(Wikipedia page on "craigslist") if it only were that easy...

"If any of the unreferenced statements above have been mentioned in the press somewhere, then all we need to do is link to it and we're done. I'm thinking that since Craig has probably done countless interviews about his company, he must have mentioned the above facts somewhere other than on this page?" Katr67 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC) (under "article errors")

the big problem with that is that in the vast majority of cases no research is done to verify Craig's claims -- interviewers are just taking notes of what Craig is telling them! so as unbelievable as it may seem it does end-up being "Craig's own press"...

Delia

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.

"What's the right way to edit the page about my company and my own bio?"

MORE: he's NOT pushing? (Cnewmark 17:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) under "article errors") what is he doing then...? what's the point of propping up Lumarine? notice that his agreement with him -- that his simply asserting the stuff should be enough -- is the opposite to what he said on his blog: "for very good reasons, I just can't assert the facts. That makes sense, in light of increasing fact checking, which is mighty important.") what happened with all those very good reasons? sounds like he was bullshitting again... D.

UPDATE: well, that doesn't work as well as I expected... (Craig posted to the Wikipedia talkpage for "Craig Newmark" without signing the post, meaning it does NOT show on his contributions page... just keep an eye on Wikipedia talkpages for "craigslist" and "Craig Newmark" if you'd like to follow this... that should keep you abreast of what's going on...)

there is NO right way to edit Wikipedia pages on oneself or one's company... (especially when you are Craig Newmark and are very likely to get preferential treatment even if all you do is "suggest" things...)

notice what was the actual effect of his "suggestions"-- it got even mild valid criticism (that should have been easily proven to be true and verifiably so) off the page:

"An issue faced by many users is that the company allows other users (volunteers) to police the site for them" ( searching feedback, flag and help would have shown that's true...)

"Many believe that the company must do more to police such actions through more intense screening of volunteers or monitoring of their behavior." (again, searching feedback, flag and help would have shown that's true...)

these were present prior (to editor EncMstr' removing "unsupported material contested by user:Cnewmark; minor cleanup of voice, grammar, cites, wikidates") and are absent thereafter ...

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")

well... what he really did was remove info that was NOT in error (and could have easily found that out through basic research) without even stating what he removed... (which makes it difficult to notice what took place)

Delia

P.S. if you are interested in when and how this all started and unfolds, check-out Craig’s Wikepedia contributions page D.

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.