Talk:Craig Newmark/Archives/2012

Lack of Criticism Section
Although the article was once dominated by a hate group that was attacking Newmark, the editing seems to have overcompensated and now there is no criticism or controversy section at all.

There is no public life without controversy so this needs to be corrected.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
The current version of this article (ID #35219072 - 02:04, 15 January 2006) contains 396 words, 252 of which relate to the controversy concerning the sale of animals through craigslist. While this controversy deserves a place on Wikipedia, it is given undue weight in this article and as a result violates section 7 of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. As a result, I have placed the NPOV warning at the top of this article. I would advocate that the text relating to this controversy would be more appropriately placed in the craigslist article, given that it is more a controversy about craigslist business policy, than it is a controversy concerning Craig Newmark himself. Perhaps a small mention would be relevant in this article, with a link to the expanded text in the craigslist article.

SweetP112 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also advocate moving said text to the craigslist article. I've already mentioned something to this affect before (below). jareha 23:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've added a sentence to craigslist's Significant events section detailing the pit bull controversy and providing a link to the San Francisco Chronicle article. SweetP112 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! jareha 03:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ettiquette
I've just asked for help regarding protocols for correcting errors and adding a little info to this article, since Jimmy told me that there's some etiquette to be observed.

any help's appreciated.

thanks!

Craig craig@craigslist.org Cnewmark 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (I've addressed this request at Craigslist and Craig responded at user talk:Cnewmark.) —EncMstr 05:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Preference
I almost recall reading that he was gay. If I found the source should that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.103.193 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Nevermind anyways on this. Turns out I was mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.103.193 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm often cheerful, but Eileen might object to characterizing me as "gay". 75.144.17.10 (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Holy crap. Google 'Eileen Whelpley' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.224.51 (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Clean up
Cleaned up some of the references, added the reference re Morristown High School. Let me know if I've managed to inadvertently delete some of the other material. Still a citation missing, but I didn't verify that information.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ad
Should mention be made of his plea for wikipedia? his photo replaced the banner - - - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.81.26 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * only if mentioned in a reliable source. which neither cl or wikipedia are.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Craigslist Is Such a Mess
Can somebody explain why they deleted the reference to the Wired article, Why Craigslist Is Such a Mess By Gary Wolf http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/magazine/17-09/ff_craigslist

The term "mess" is actually a backwards complement. It means that Craigslist is running things in a way that other people think is a mess, but from the user's POV, does exactly what it's supposed to do.

I thought it was a good article, and quite favorable to Craig Newmark, unlike most of the media, who don't seem to understand him too well. -- Nbauman (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)