(Guardian) why bother researching the issue?... let *Craig* tell the story!

to its credit, Wikipedia regards Craig's blog as biased towards Craig and his company ("In this (wikipedia) article, your blog is listed as an official site, meaning that it should be treated as biased toward the article subject"; under "article errors") -- the Guardian doesn't seem to care... it links directly to Craig's blog instead of doing their own research on the issue:"[Craig was] trying to edit his Wikipedia entry" and so...? what happened? D.

who are they kidding? (craigslist just *happened* to grow.. they never pursued it!)

EVEN MORE: keep in mind that they were doing this in 1998! when craigslist was in San Francisco ONLY (seeking out job posting prospects etc. in plenty of other metro areas shows definite intent and action towards "accelerating growth" as far as I can see...) D.

MORE: as usual, I'm just picking ONE issue but read the whole thing if you have the time and interest (there is plenty that should give you reason to do some research and see for yourself) D.

Jim: "we've never done anything to accelerate the growth in terms of advertising or anything like that."

well... see for yourself: it certainly looks like drumming up business to me! (much more agressive than plain old advertizing...)

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 Craig *really* up to?

Well... I don't think we have enough info at this point to know what's Craig *really* up to... For one thing, we NEED to know how much he is and has been *profiting* from craigslist... (as the owner of a sizable chunk of it) and how does it all play out in the long run (what may *look* like not maximizing income at this time may well be an illusion that will be dispelled in time since it appears that the long term picture is very different).

As to "giving extensively to charity," again... we NEED to know how much he *profits* and has been profiting from craigslist... and how much he gives (I'm not aware of substantial donations, given his estimated *profits* -- I'm NOT talking *salary*, that's just a red herring...).

Delia

P.S. I might have been impressed with Craig if he would have been for real, if he would have either kept craigslist a non-profit (and used the profits to pay for things like customer service and improvements, instead of pocketing them while in the same time talking the grand talk... which seems to be what's going on) or at least voluntarily disclosed his profits so people could see what he's made of... The fact that he doesn't do that makes me think he's full of hot air... (probably much more so than Larry Ellison and pretty much all those who were upfront about wanting to make money).

P.P.S. Oh... and he no longer drives a Saturn (not that it matters much...) D.

craigslist mythology

MORE: I have a feeling Al is a lost cause... -- it's not like I hadn't already given him a pretty good hint (he continues to be clueless... unless he's intentionally misleading) D.

Hi Al!

re: "PayScale, Inc. is a market leader in global online compensation data"

oh boy... that's bad news :) ... (that even the leader gives such inaccurate info -- it helps perpetuate the unbelievably long-lived craigslist mythology)

Delia

P.S. most of your facts are either not up to date or purposefully misleading... (e.g. craiglist is NOT a nonprofit, although they make it difficult for plenty of people to realize that, and Craig is NOT a CEO...) D.

(inadequate customer service) just how frustrated do users get?

just listen to this poor 52 year old woman...: "All I'm trying to do is share some really nice cross stitch charts that are not available anywhere else... (...) ... Just when I think I am following the advice from someone here, to the letter, I get told yet again that I am violating the rules and regulations on Craig's List ... (...) ... now it appears as if they are allowed but then again, not alowed"

"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.