craigslist criticism

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

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

craigslist lawsuits: poor craigslist... WAY "off the ground" and making a killing...

it still needs ALL the protection it needed back when it started!(when it made people think it would never turn for profit...and got their time and resources, including speedy legal help); afterall it still has a tinny staff, doesn't it? no matter that it's making huge profits as a result (while providing as little customer service and improvements it can get away with), that NEEDS protection!

Delia

P.S. some of the arguments appear clueless when it comes to the realities of today's craigslist as well as fundamental things about what craigslist does (most notably not differentiating between FORUMS, where protection should certainly be granted and ADS, where craigslist is no different than a newspaper classifieds, it's just using today's technology which is certainly capable of adequate screening, when the will is there...) D.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

people are waking up!

great post by Dan Gillmor:

"If you are generous enough to do this kind of work for free, please consider doing instead it for a nonprofit site of some sort. Please don’t be giving away your time to mega-wealthy media barons." (last paragraph)

(he is not naming names but... we all know them...)

Delia

P.S. also a great comment on Seth's blog (5th comment):

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: "Frankly, I find that reprehensible. I can understand people donating their time to a non-profit organization like Wikipedia.... fine. But when people up at the top are rolling in the dough on unpaid labor?

Since Wikia is a for-profit organization, it stands to reason that their workers (contributors, admins, and the like) are all "off-the-clock", unpaid labor... Frankly, were it any other company, such acts would be illegal and the Department of Labor would be on them like vultures on a rotting carcass."

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Craig's press and the gullible journalists: craigslist keeps growing???

MORE (explanation)

Craig: "what we see is long steady growth, which is our history" (about the middle of the interview)

looks like what's growing steadily is... Craig's NOSE!...as for craigslist? it's down to 10!(used to be 7); and that's in the US, it's merely 60 overall: in the past three month it's been down on all criteria: traffic rank by 12%, reach by 6%, pages viewed by user by 1%...

Delia

P.S. looks like craigslist is growing... into the ground...*lol*

Monday, February 4, 2008

benjamin from Seattle: thanks for leaving a comment!

unfortunately it wasn't pertinent to the entry and could have easily been spam…

Delia

P.S. feel free to try again if you'd like! D.

Sunday, February 3, 2008