Talk:Adam Curry/Archives/2012

Just to be fair
I think this should be nominated for deletion as Adam Curry isn't a notable individual. I say this because the article about Keith Malley, who has a well known rivalry with Adam Curry, and serves just as important of a role in promoting podcasting is marked for deletion for the same reason when both are similiar in notability. On top of Adam Curry edits his own wikipedia entry to make him appear as a more positive and influential individual.


 * Adam Curry was also an MTV VJ, a widely reported/discussed businessman in .nl (Jamby) and one of the first people in "hollywood" that maintained a website. This article is also regularly checked for any edits that may potentially be from Adam, but since that incident, similarly edits have not been found. Anyone is allowed to make mistaken on Wikipedia. Don't be bitter. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement above by an anonymous IP that "Adam Curry edits his own wikipedia entry to make him appear as a more positive and influential individual" is a false allegation about a living individual, something that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. There was a 2005 "scandal" about Adam Curry's editing an article on podcasting, not his own article--see Adam Curry for more. And you might also be interested in looking at the history of this article, where I think you'll find lots of evidence of anonymous people adding unflattering information to make Curry appear less positive and less influential. If Keith Malley is, as you claim, Curry's notability-twin, then the nomination of Malley's page for deletion will fail, so don't worry. betsythedevine 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Blog?
Since when is a WikiPedia page supposed to be used as a blog? I think we should revert it back to what it was about a month ago and lock it.Piko 18:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph of the podcasting section might be a little fanboyish.
 * It's both fanboyish and not notable. I'm removing it. Majts 02:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree completely. Haakon 13:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2818 "Adam Curry Caught in Sticky Wiki"

Additions
I think some pictures should be added. Post here if you aggree or dissagree or if you there are any other issues. Hidekatsu
 * I agree, IIRC there used to be a picture of him (younger than he is now, I think) but I have no idea where that went to... anyone feel the want to add one? I think the article could use it. aubrey 07:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Should someone post this article somewhere on this page? http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2818 Rhine

That article was there and removed. I think it is NPOV and relevant. Here is the paragraph:

In February and again in November of 2005, Adam Curry made numerous edits to the 'podcasting' entry on the the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, in an attempt to boost his involvement in the creation of podcasting by taking credit for other people's contributions and removing names of others who have been involved in the podcasting developmental processes. This story was posted by Rogers Cadenhead on his blog. Curry defended his content erasures on Wikipedia's difficult to understand editing system on his own blog http://www.curry.com/2005/12/02. The edits in question are: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=82.108.78.107&offset=0&limit=500


 * "an attempt to boost his involvement"
 * "Wikipedia's difficult to understand editing system"

Not NPOV, hardly relevant, I have removed it. I would shorten the paragraph and have the link to the outside reference, for if anyone wants any more information.--Nick 01:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Mr Curry himself is editing this page. It seems very positive and anything negative keeps getting removed. I can't believe that many people love Curry that much to keep doing this. -- 83.129.5.171

Please sign your edits by typing four tildes. Possibly he is, I have attempted to edit the paragraph to be more NPOV. It seems fine to me as it is. However, the rest of the article needs to be copyedited and revamped. Your only edits seem to be to this page, are you sure you're not Adam Curry?--Nick 01:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Additions
I see the article makes reference to Special:Contributions/82.108.78.107.

One problem I see with this is that it is not a static page--if someone else signs in under the address, Mr. Curry moves and some Wikipedia moves into his old place, or a million other things, the page may change.

The article Marty Meehan recently had the same problem (his staff was submitting to his page). One way they dealt with it was to link to an | an example of the edit. This is non-static, and is effectively locked within Wikipedia's database. Moreover, it gives readers a snippet of the actual text that the offender was attempting to inject into the article.

Of course, there is still the problem of linking to the history comparison page, which people unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia may find confusing. I'll bring it up there.Yeago 23:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Over-reaction to edits?
Just wondering if it's really necessary to discuss a user's editing practice in article namespace? Even Willy on wheels doesn't get anything more than a redirect in article space... Just imagine if we tracked down and wrote paragraphs for every IP that made edits to articles related to themselves. Besides the wiki-witch-hunt aspects of this, do we really want an encyclopedia to consist of lists of users edit histories? --Stoive 01:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as too self-referential. Here's the key question: are the WP edits themselves a notable activity of this person? Otherwise it's about as relevant as their last dentist appointment. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I came from the RfC: I agree that this seems too self-referential and not really notable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I came here via RfC. So, we have a celebrity, partially a web celebrity, editing an article that deals with his industry, on what is becoming a major refference (i.e. wiki), trying to make his achievements look better.

He tried to do it anonymously and was found out.

I mean- if someone tried to secretly edit an encyclopedia under these circumstances and was found out- wouldn't it be mentioned?

It's all a bit surreal, however, interesting as hell. I say we keep it. Sethie 07:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the edits are relevant to Curry's bio here, but some recent edits violate NPOV. Curry isn't the first person ever to make his first Wikipedia edits in complete ignorance of Wikipedia policies and without having signed up for a username. I've been blasted for having created my own article under these circumstances, and deservedly so, I'm still embarassed about it, though the article didn't end up getting deleted. Wikipedia discourages autobiographical edits because it's natural for people to see their own role in events as extremely important. Still, many people correct their own articles rather than leave incorrect information there: .betsythedevine 13:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I came here from RfC. To be honest I doubt that anyone's behaviour as a Wikipedia editor can itself be encylopedic. There might be extreme exceptions, but this is pretty run-of-the-mill. I say leave that paragraph out. AndyJones 17:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

from rfc, i'd say out, also. given how wikipedia works, it's the equivalent of someone writing a letter to encyclopedia britannica about their own entry. it's considered & processed by the (community of) editors, & that's that. it's not news. Appleby 19:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But you don't get to determine what news is by whatever logic you choose to use. I learned about it from the media, so by definition it is news.  If, in your example, this person's letter to Britannica becomes a controversy, then there is no reason the brittanica article should not mention it.  --C S (Talk) 02:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm here from the RfC. Seems to me that, unless the editing of the article has made front-page news on some newspaper, it doesn't need to be mentioned in Wikipedia. See WP:V -- can it be verified from any reliable source (Wikipedia edit histories don't count)? --Carnildo 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In the interests of verifiability...how could anything be more reliable than Wikipedia's own edit history?? --C S (Talk) 02:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there any proof that it's Adam Curry? Wikipedia history is pretty reliable evidence that the edits were made, but not about who made them. --Carnildo 19:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought you meant that we could not link to Wikipedia edit histories as evidence that these edits were made (by certain IPs). I think that's fine, although I'm sure others would disagree.  As for the proof it was him, by now, of course, we have his own admission.  --C S (Talk) 04:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Following the above comments, I've trimmed down the paragraph in question, trying to acheive a less accusatory tone in the article in the process. I'm still not convinced that a user's Wikipedia edit history is notable enough for an encyclopedia, but I think if it IS included, there's no need to make a mountain out of a molehill (it's only 4 relatively small edits we're discussing after all!). --Stoive 01:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not whether you or I consider them small edits. This editing by Curry has not only been slashdotted, but mentioned in various media publications.  It's not just an internal matter.  Your recent edit is not only misleading because it states that his edits were attempts to boost his repuation (rather than specifically deleting mention of other pioneers), but part of the controversy is Curry's seemingly evasive defenses of his actions, e.g. saying he deleted things by accident and was intending on replacing some of the deleted material.  --C S (Talk) 02:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "relatively small" in terms of amount of material he added and removed. Every minute of every day there are far more significant POV or inaccurate statements added and removed from Wikipedia. Sorry if my edit was misleading - I was just trying to cut the POV cruft out of the paragraph. I've re-inserted mention that his edits appeared to be removing mention of the roles of others. I certainly don't think that the "naming and shaming of the IP address" belongs in an encyclopedia article, nor the praise of the amazing detective who managed to use simple tools to look up who an IP belonged to (with the tone suggesting that anyone not creating a userid is necessarily trying to hide, when in fact the opposite is the case - that was how he was 'cleverly tracked down'). The primary reference for this seems to be a couple of blogs, and slashdot does not in itself make an event noteworthy. If someone can cite a reference in mainstream media, for example the BBC news website, CNN, a respected national newspaper, or other publication of similar standing, by all means keep this. Otherwise I find it difficult to see that Wikipedia edits are at all notable. --Stoive 22:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Things look a lot better now than when I made my edit (note that I didn't write most of that stuff). I'll keep an eye out for BBC, CNN, type articles.  All I've seen so far are C-Net type articles.  One nit-pick about your most recent edit though: "Curry later apologised claiming he could not understand how to use Wikipedia editing functions" makes him sound like a moron.  Perhaps it's just me, but I think there must be a better way to phrase it.  Maybe "...claiming he found the Wikipedia editing process confusing"?  I'm not sure that's much better.  --C S (Talk) 04:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In Response...Curry said on his website www.curry.com on Friday, December 2nd. "So I started to edit. After about 20 minutes of trying to figure out the interface of the editing system I became exasperated and gave up." He spent 20 minutes and could not figure out the editing system on Wikipedia. Maybe he IS a moron? Those are his words. --User: BT


 * The situation has made the mainstream media in stories about the Siegenthaler entry, mentioned as a sidenote. But seeing it on Curry's entry makes me wonder if Wikipedia editors should ask themselves a general question, "Will anyone care about this fact in five or 10 years?" I think the controversy would be worth mentioning in an entry about Wikipedia editing controversies, but on Curry's own bio, I suspect it will seem extremely trivial -- if it's remembered at all -- in five years. Rcade 13:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but... if you remove the paragraph, my guess is that some random IP, who expected to find this info in Wikipedia, will figure it's "missing" and write an entirely new one. betsythedevine 13:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I doubt if most editors of Wikipedia care to be concerned with the question, "Will anyone care about this fact in five or 10 years?" "All human knowledge" is a rather broad goal; for many editors, if a topic is of concern NOW that is reason enough to add it to Wikipedia. Next month the decision might be made to take it out. --JWSchmidt 16:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally think it's pretty tacky to put that last paragraph in. Makes wikipedia look less credible to have personal attacks included in the article regarding the person's effort to correct what he viewed as errors in the article. Very middle school. Very cheesy. --User: Christy

This fiasco was mentioned in a Nature special report ... I guess if its notable for Nature, its notable enough for Wikipedia Stoive 02:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Scandals added by anonymous user
84.104.220.11 added: ''Curry also tried to make money in the helicopter-business. But his Dutch company Rotorjet went bankrupt, and the Dutch tax authorities investigated claims that Curry's wife Patricia used a helicopter to visit a hair stylist, without paying the proper taxes. Two Dutch internet companies, Databarn and Jamby, founded by Curry, went bankrupt.''

I first removed this because there was no sources cited at all, and such claims added by anonymous users seem typical of recent Wikipedia "scandals". The user added the claims back, citing: This can be verified at the dutch chamber of commerce. Is anyone here in the position to verify the claims? Google turns up nothing of the kind at all, and it would be nontrivial for me to verify it with the Dutch chamber of commerce. Haakon 09:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First, this material doesn't belong in the summary at the top of the page. Second, I don't consider that the anonymous user has offered an adequate citing of encyclopedia-quality sources. Third, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where people expect to find out why biography subjects are notable, not a gossip rag where people can anonymously post embarassing but non-notable information about public figures. For all these reasons, I'm joining Haakon in removing this junk. betsythedevine 10:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The website of the Dutch Chamber of Commerce shows that both Jamby and Databarn have gone bankrupt, except for a firm called Databarn Evolution which may or may not be related. Rotorjet seems to still be alive. Although it doesn't show that Adam owned them, that, and the fact that they went belly-up, is considered common knowledge in the Netherlands (which doesn't make it necearily true, I have to admit). SQB 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Where in the world is Adam Curry?
This article states that Curry was born in "Arlington, USA". Where is that exactly? One could assume that this means Virginia, but there are several cities named Arlington in the United States. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It used to say he was from Washington, which was changed to Arlington. One could assume this concatenates to Arlington, Washington. Haakon 07:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well an anonymous user edited it to say Arlington, Virginia. No sources were cited, and i don't know what's right, but hopefully someone can confirm or correct it. Haakon 08:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Arlington Virgina is just outside of Washington, DC. Seems plausible. 64.223.45.35 05:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First sentence says Washington, DC. Third paragraph says Arlington, VA. Will this guy make his mind up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.168.146 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorization: Articles edited by interested parties
I placed the article in the above category, however, I believe its going to be voted for deletion.

Could you please go either to VfD or to my Talk page and give some feedback (if you care =] )?

I really felt that the categorization was very helpful and I am curious to know what others think.

Please do not consider this a solicitation for approval votes. Thanks. Yeago 03:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming your adding that category to this article reflects Adam Curry's making 4 edits to the Podcasting article? AFAIK, the Adam Curry article wasn't involved. betsythedevine 03:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it not accurate that his IP address edited this article as well? I thought I read that.Yeago 03:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia discourages edits made on the basis of "I thought I read that": WP:V. betsythedevine 19:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words, am I correct in believing you are the first human being that had never misread anything ever? Please, consider it my pleasure to interact with you, nay, a most sincere and indescribable honor. Thank you for the very helpful link&mdash;hope I didn't misread anything there, either!Yeago 02:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeago, your energy and enthusiasm are admirable. There's no reason you'd know every Wikipedia policy by heart--I certainly don't. I actually tried to make my previous comment not too snarky. But it's also true, if you want to know my own prejudice, that I'm unhappy the story of Adam Curry's 4 problematic edits has gotten so blown up in the public imagination that many people have the vague idea he performed massive surgery all over Wikipedia trying to discredit other podcasters. But let's say pax, okay? betsythedevine 03:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the undercurrent of my reply. Applying "policy" to simple human error is obnoxious. So, your continued insinuation that Verification is a word and concept that simply slipped through my experience here is truly well received. I thank you so much for continuing to bless me with your understanding (and now your patience!!). Please let me know how you'd like to be compensated.


 * Your prejudice was already clear. I'm not aware, in either myself or anyone I've ever read, of anyone making this phantom claim of "massive [Wikipedia] surgeory". Point is he did come here, blow smoke up his own ass anonymously, and then apologize when he got caught. My latest pet project Wikipedia and public opinion has yet to be infected by the conspiracy you speak of&mdash;but soon! Soon for sure!!


 * Thank you so much for this second interaction. It has been wholly heartwarming and has me beaming at the joy of simple human communication&mdash;how precious and meaningful it can be!
 * Yeago 07:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo
Isn't there a better photo of Adam Curry alone available? Who is Nick Starr, he doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry.Norsktroll (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I cropped the image to a portrait. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

no links to his ex-wife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Paay) or current(?) gf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micky_Hoogendijk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.218.241 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)