Talk:Garrett Camp

Über casual
[graf 1]

"...applying the lessons he learned toward a couple new projects at a time'.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.98.113 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Garrett Camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520051809/http://www.centernetworks.com/interview-with-garrett-camp-stumbleupon/ to http://www.centernetworks.com/interview-with-garrett-camp-stumbleupon/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130419233406/http://techland.time.com/2013/04/15/50-must-have-ipad-apps/slide/stumbleupon/ to http://techland.time.com/2013/04/15/50-must-have-ipad-apps/slide/stumbleupon/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

COI Proposed Rewrite
My name is John - and I work as a consultant for Garrett Camp and his foundation. The current page has more than 70 citations, but the majority of them are press releases, short blurbs, brief mentions, broken links, articles that merely quote Camp, Q&A interviews, Forbes blogs, or articles that do not mention Mr. Camp at all. The article itself consists largely of awards, rankings, and promotion about the companies he's involved in.

I'd like to suggest reworking the page to be a proper biographical narrative of Camp's life story with good-quality cites. I've put together a draft here. Let me know if the easiest way for me to propose a rework that would bring the page more in-line with Wikipedia's standards while following WP:COI. John Pinette (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Reply 3-JUL-2023
Regards, Spintendo  02:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a move in the right direction. I would however suggest rethinking the WP:TECHCRUNCH sources, as these can be problematic. Each author needs to be individually checked for appropriateness—a time consuming affair that I prefer to avoid whenever possible. In this case there are quite a few, so I would ask that you find better alternatives for as many of them as possible, leaving only those which are needed the most (and which would survive scrutiny). The single Forbes source is an illustration of this: the author, Biz Carson, writes editorials (or wrote, rather — as she is no longer at Forbes) and her article about the subject and "Finding things on the Internet" appears to fall under the category of editorial.
 * 2) The Stone source The Upstarts has multiple ref notes (the entire breadth of the alphabet A to Z according to the reference section) and yet only one page is cited, page 47. Either this is incorrect, or there are too many ref notes for this claim. Please recheck the page numbers, and if necessary, use the    template to list them with each ref note.
 * 3) I stand ready to review any changes at your earliest convenience. When ready to proceed, kindly change the  template's answer parameter to read from y to n. Thank you!


 * ✅ Per feedback from Spintendo above, the draft now has only 1 TechCrunch citation remaining and page numbers for each citation to the book "The Upstarts". I think the draft is a big improvement over the current page. Let me know if editor(s) feel it's ready. Best regards. John Pinette (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to white-wash this article by removing references to the news article about the purchase of Camp's mansion in Southern California and the reaction it got from Uber drivers. I removed the word "allegation" from the heading to satisfy any qualms about that word. Wikipedia is not a free PR vehicle; it is an encyclopedia. Please treat it as such. Chisme (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * For the record this was discussed at the BLP noticeboard here, and I was the one that removed that part (not JP) Tristario (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I implemented your feedback in the draft here if you still have time to take a look. The allegation of whitewashing (above) had nothing to do with the proposed draft and was resolved at BLPN here. The relevant portion of the current live article was just copy/pasted into the draft. In other words, the draft does not attempt to make any changes to any controversies. John Pinette (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)