Talk:LiveJournal/Archive 1

Important Milestones Missing
I took these off of the article as they looked just a tad unprofessional and they belong back here Xoder 15:25, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Friends list, security settings
 * Friends view
 * User pictures

Frank the Goat
Who's gonna edit or delete the nonsense? --Sam Francis
 * For one, why is it nonsense? For two, you're more than welcome to, though others may revert, so it's useful to justify your deletion here. --Golbez 22:13, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nonsense it may be, but its nonsense the people who run LJ have incorporated into their business. Please note Frank's Home Page, and his (albiet unofficial) Journal.  &mdash; Xoder|&#9990; 02:38, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've removed the main part I object to, which is "Although most people think that goats are incapable of using a computer or human emotion, Frank proves skeptics wrong." It just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -- Sam Francis --asciident 22:34, 5 June 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope I'm not alone in calling that sentence nonsense. --Sam Francis


 * you are not alone... there is so much detailed unneccearry crap in there... who cares when LJ hired their first employee etc. that's by far the most useless article I've seen on wikipedia so far.


 * But having more then enough information is not gonna degrade the quality of the other articles on the wikipedia. When they hired their first employee is information fit for the LJ node of the wikipedia. That's the beauty of a wiki.

Just for the joy of recursion:

Four million accounts
I was unable to find any announcement of when LJ reached 4 million accounts, but if anyone does it'd be a nice addition to the timeline. It happened somewhere around or before August 2004, I guess, so that's quite the exponential growth :) --Spug 15:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other Sites
Have removed a large list of other sites running off the LJ code, as Wikipedia is not a web directory, and the list was getting somewhat out of hand, IMO. I'd suggest that any site which is significant enough to have its own Wikipedia article could be added back, but we should probably keep them out otherwise. For the record, the list was:


 * AboutMyLife
 * Blurty
 * Caleida
 * CrazyLife
 * DeadJournal
 * GreatestJournal
 * InsaneJournal
 * JournalFen
 * NeedlessPanic
 * Plogs.net

Rho 06:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I feel Caleida is significant enough to be re-added. It's been around since 2002, and is also one of the most uniquely evolved versions of the LiveJournal code. --ElfWord 06:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What's unique about it? Just curious. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 22:11, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
 * They made their own skin, I think. Ashibaka tock 23:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Lj is growing. India must be added in the demography section. Good Luck!

Controversy section (LJ Abuse)
First off, the disclaimer:

I used to be a member of the LJ abuse team, but left the team a few months ago. As such, I almost certainly have some bias in this issue. So I'm not making much in the way of edits here just yet.


 * From its support group LiveJournal created an Abuse team

I've removed this as simply not true. When the abuse team was originally created, it worked entirely independantly of support. It was only later that the two were integrated.


 * As the critics had suspected, the policy document was indeed much stricter than what was suggested as acceptable by the Terms of Service.

I disagree with this bit as well. Personally, I think that the ToS are incredibly strict, and the actual policies less strict. Should we try to elaborate on both viewpoints here, or should we just provide links to the two documents and let the readers decide for themselves?


 * link, because it's the policy doc statements that are rubbing everyone. SchmuckyTheCat 00:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've edited this section to try to make it more even handed. My intention is to say that people compared the two, different people came to different conclusions, and to give both links for any curious reader. I've done my best not to over-emphasise my POV. Rho 01:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * some believe that these users are abandoning LiveJournal for other blogging sites.

Who believes this?


 * This has exacerbated the opinion held by some that LiveJournal is a fine host for teenage diaries and social networking

And who holds these opinions?


 * Whether these Terms of Service and their enforcement by the Abuse team will affect LiveJournal revenue remains to be seen.

And this just seems to be entirely meaningless in terms of actual content.

If someone from "the other side" of this argument, or a neutral, could try to address some of these points, then that would be good. Otherwise I'll give it a go myself. Rho 12:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) SchmuckyTheCat 00:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i removed that thing about revenue, i don't know anyone who thinks controversy has anything to do with revenue. the things about not being a serious site has been brought up in lj_biz from media articles, it's a valid statement.


 * Oh, I'm not trying to say that it isn't a valid statement. In fact, I probably agree with it myself. I'm just saying that without any sort of cite it doesn't read well. I had a brief look through lj_biz and couldn't see anything like that. If you could find some sort of supporting link, then that would be fantastic. Rho 01:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to add that I feel the final paragraph of the Controversy section really does need to be sourced somehow. I'm uncomfortable with the statement that "some believe that these users are abandoning LiveJournal for other blogging sites," mainly because I don't know who these "some" are or what their personal ties to the controversy are.  I also don't know what proof we have that any notable portion of the userbase has left.  LiveJournal's userbase continues to grow, and I have to believe that the people saying users are leaving are users with axes to grind against Abuse.  Unless it can be sourced, perhaps that should be changed to "a small group of users" or something similar to indicate that this is certainly a minority opinion, and not one that's being broadcast with any great frequency.


 * Additionally, I think the wording "these users" should be changed to "a few users" or something similar if we're going to keep that line, because of course the users that have been banned are going elsewhere, seeing as they can't stay on LiveJournal. I think the line is supposed to indicate that users untouched by the Abuse controversy are leaving as a result of what they're seeing, but it doesn't read that way as of now.


 * Also, maybe this is just a misunderstanding on my part, but was it not always the intention to have the "leaked" policy document made public once feedback had been given on it by Abuse and Support team members? This article makes it seem as though it was some super-secret memo only for privileged eyes, when in all actuality I believe it was supposed to be made public only a short time after it was "leaked." Beginning 01:56, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * it's unknown and unknowable whether the policy doc would ever have been publicized had controversy about it not existed. there are abuse staffers who were very upset that it was leaked and subsequently made public. they DID treat it like a super-secret trade document for the priviledged.


 * This lj_biz entry indicates that there were plans to release them publicly after due process, so I think it's reasonable to assume they would have been. Rho 03:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * as to the users leaving, it's complicated. some people were banned and had the bans reversed, and got fed up with the lack of consistency and the sheer ridiculousness of it.  they still have their LJ but actively seek to move "readers" to their new sites or else continue to use LJ for the social and commenting part.  like any type of consumer dissatisfaction they affect other people to leave or stop posting and the majority of them don't make a lot of noise about it.  I DO NOT think this affects LJ userbase growth, but it's the higher quality of users leaving.  for every user like cetan that leaves, LJ might gain four teenage girls.  LJ doesn't have the business model that quantity of users is all that matters, quality does.


 * Insightful. I invite anyone to take a look at my journal to see the type of stuff that's driven away from LiveJournal, then go look at the trolling and crap they prefer. I find it very odd that they take the side of trolls with free accounts over paying users. Metamatic 16:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversion (Abuse team section)
Reverted - reluctantly - to remove unverifiable and non-NPOV information. [so-called &#8216;Controversy&#8217; section]. Pursuant: a) [points 3, 6, 7]. b) Opus citatum [What Wikipedia articles are not]: 5, 8, 18, 23 c) [multiple instances] d) Frequent use of "weasel terms" as they are defined by Wikipedia. e) - Inappropriate subjects for an encyclopaedia. f) Underlying issue of lack of NPOV (neutral point of view). This has been raised before and it is clear controversy is continuing without likelihood of harmony. Wikipedia policy is that all articles should have a neutral point of view. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". Thus reluctantly reverting.

Reverting also includes removal of &#8216;notable users&#8217;. While this has not been discussed to same extent its inclusion is acceptable as this data it is highly subjective (does one include &#8216;Evan&#8217; who now works for Google or should one include &#8216;pjammer&#8217; an erudite professional? Ad infinitum). In interests of co-operation and harmony removing the &#8216;Notable&#8217;/&#8217;most-famous&#8217; user section altogether likely appropriate. (this edit was made unsigned by 172.191.123.171 -- Rho 22:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC))

While I agree that some of the text you removed was not perfect, I believe that several users have been making a good faith effort to cooperate and improve the article. As such, I am reverting back. If you wish to discuss individual points so that they can be improved, then please do so. You also appear to have failed to avoid collateral damage. Rho 22:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Rho. The best response to non-NPOV is to refactor what is written to be NPOV rather than to erase it entirely. Neutral point of view describes this well.--Clipdude 03:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with messrs Rho and Clipdude. It seems 'schmuckythecat' is a 'long-standing' critic/attacker of LiveJournal's abuse team: sample 'schmuckythecat' diatribe on abuse team / mirrored here An encyclopaedia is not the place for personal and private arguments or beefs with the LiveJournal Abuse Team to spill over into? --Whitehorse1 21:40, 04 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for us to argue about LiveJournal's abuse policies. However, there is nothing wrong with mentioning and describing the ongoing controversy about abuse policies in the article about LiveJournal. Unfortunately, there will be some contention about what exactly is and isn't NPOV while working on this article, and that contention might stem from differing viewpoints in the controversy itself, but that doesn't mean we should give up and not talk about the abuse controversy, no more than the volunteers working on abortion or George W. Bush should ignore the controversies surrounding those topics.--Clipdude 03:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you attacking me or my contributions? Being a critic doesn't mean I'm a blind rabid attack dog. The controversies over abuse team policies exist. The founder of LJ has done his own criticizing. 8 of the last 20 lj_biz threads (most of 2004) are directly about abuse policies, about half of the other 12 top threads end up discussing abuse policies too. The controversies exist, the founder and everyone else recognize and discuss the issues, hence - it's fit for wikipedia. My personal issue was resolved long ago and I still use LJ. That I'm still an advocate for policy change doesn't make my contributions instantly suspect.SchmuckyTheCat 03:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What is contested is the existence of an ongoing controversy / extent to which it reflects any volume of users. To take George W. Bush as an example, there is widespread debate about policy and decisionmaking. If there was merely a very small amount of individuals who disagreed with George W. Bush and who decided to hijack an otherwise regular Wikipedia article to further their agenda and publicise their personal beefs that may be objectionable too. Wikipedia is NOT a free 'speakers corner' for professional anti-LiveJournal AT campaigners.


 * The founder of LiveJournal has not, as was asserted, 'done his own criticizing'. It is unethical to suggest this. He in fact said "I keep seeing references to my great misunderstood quote being used as some sort of argument that the LJ Abuse team is incompetent". His statement about monitoring being important for checks & balances was twisted out of context and its meaning changed by anarchistic users. In fact, he stated he wholly supported the team and valued their work.He went on to say "The LJ Abuse team couldn't be better." community entry discussing alleged 'controversy'


 * Further, poor moderation on the part of the lj_biz community may be to blame for any quantity of entries discussing one topic. The entries in question tend to either be posted by or commented on by a very small amount of users (the same each time) who continually come into contact with the Abuse team. A team which can only respond to and act upon complaints made. Again, this is not the place for personal and private arguments or beefs with the LiveJournal Abuse Team to spill over into. --Whitehorse1 21:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Whitehorse1, I could take you more seriously if you weren't here only to attack me. I've been making signed contributions to Wikipedia since 2003 and anonymous before that.  Your contribs section only includes this talk entry directed at this issue and my part in it in particular.  I'm not anarchistic.  I'm a fan of LiveJournal.  I bet Brad and I would get along swell over drinks.  There is a contingent of regular users who have issues with LJ Abuse, but it is not ONLY that contingent, and it is not ONLY that contingent that is vocal when they think LJ Abuse made a bad decision. LJ has six million users so of course governance of that many people will make controversy.  When the controversy is about free speech rights on the worlds largest web forum, that controversy is worthwhile of mention. By only attacking me and poo-poo'ing the whole thing you're coming off as a shill. SchmuckyTheCat 21:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the abuse team stuff is taking up a disproportionate amount of the article. The abuse team is only discussed for three paragraphs, and the controversy only two of those three.


 * The way I see it, LiveJournal isn't primarily a journal-hosting service--it's primarily a community. How a community is policed, and the debates about how that policing is carried out, are critical to the discussion of any community.


 * To put it another way, the abuse team functions as the government, so to speak, of LiveJournal. We should probably have some discussion about how it works and how users view it.-Clipdude 05:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As someone who does research on LJ and is a support team member as well as long-time community member, I would argue that the abuse team section, but particularly the second paragraph of this does not reflect WP:NPOV. I think it should be revised to make this look more like the opinion of some people.  In particular, using the term "unfortunately" and "no matter how trivial" and "alleged" (this term in particular implies that LJ abuse doesn't consider allegations carefully and come to a consensus on the matter or have procedures--most of the requests submitted to the abuse team are rejected, and some result in a notice that says "you have to remove x content or your account will be suspended") is bad. Also, one very good and obvious reason that abuse team member identity is private (there may be others that I don't know about) is because they would likely receive no end of complaints in their personal accounts if it were public or be called individually to account for specific issues, which would be extremely difficult for them--some mention of this fact should be included for balance.  Museumfreak 11:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty generally held that transparency is a good thing in any organization that has power over others, so I don't see why "unfortunately" isn't NPOV. I've reworded the section containing "no matter how trivial" to make it clear that it is talking about their only action, assuming that they decide to act. As to anonymity, it would be perfectly possible to give abuse team members individual pseudonymous identities. But that would allow accountability, so I doubt it'll happen. Metamatic 20:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Six Apart acquires LiveJournal
Six Apart (makers of Movable Type and TypePad) bought LiveJournal and Danga Interactive, as announced on 1/5 by both LiveJournal and Six Apart. The Danga staff will be moving to San Francisco within the next two months. LiveJournal will be a branch of Six Apart separate from Moveable Type and TypePad, and the code will remain open source. Shadowsong 18:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I see that now someone has added to the article that Six Apart bought the entire Danga... However, I can't find any proof of this anywhere. Neither the LJ news post or the Six Apart announcement mention that Six Apart bought Danga, only that they bought LiveJournal from Danga. Or am I misunderstanding? --Spug 13:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Brad confirmed that the deal was for all of Danga and not just LiveJournal in a comment in his journal. Shadowsong 20:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

new subsection
I created a new subsection to the Controversies section, dealing with the hysteria and debate relating to Danga's sale to Six Apart. I'd like it if people would fine-tune what I've written; some of the sentences are not yet to my liking. Also, if someone could add more links to posts that defend Brad's decision to sell (I only have Evan's linked), that would be really cool.--Clipdude 05:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the sale should probably have its own subsection, I don't think that it belongs in the "Controversies" section. First of all, the "hysteria" (a term I strongly disagree with) was more speculation-driven and not due to any real controversy.  I have yet to see many people complain that the sale is a bad thing; the vast majority of the LiveJournal userbase actually likes it.  Your examples of protests against the sale are from individual journals and don't reflect the majorty in any way.  What occured prior to the official announcement was more about rumor-spreading than any real objections people had to the sale.  As far as people backing up their journals goes, most did it out of concern for what might happen to their accounts down the road or because their friends told them to, not any objection to the sale.  While the objections that some, especially the volunteers, had prior to clarification on what was happening is notable, it shouldn't be the focus of the whole discussion regarding the sale.  The sale was in the works for months, and yet this article focuses on less that two days of rumors.  I appreciate the effort, but I think the article approaches the subject from the wrong direction.  Beginning 06:16, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I think you are right. We should move it out of the Controversies section and expand the discussion so that the focus isn't on the objections. Nonetheless, I think the objections should still be mentioned in the article; I don't think the represent only a small segment of the userbase, since I have seen people objecting on my friends list and in the comments to Brad's initial announcement. I probably gave the objections too much attention in my writing, but that is because I was trying to consciously avoid bias toward my personal opinion (which is favorable to Brad's decision). By the way, I should have mentioned that by "hysteria", I meant the massive backing-up and rumors before the sale was announced, and not the objections.Clipdude 06:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Added: I should clarify that I don't think the objections reflect the majority of the userbase, either.--Clipdude 06:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've made substantial changes in response to your comments.--Clipdude 06:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Power outage, 15th January 2005
Could people please stop spuriously deleting the item about the power outage without prior discussion? An outage that takes down the site for over 24 hours - the longest such outage to date - would seem to be fairly important to note. Particularly when it has made Slashdot, eWeek and other news sites. If it's being reported in the press than it's important enough to be in the artcle. Arkady Rose 23:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed External Link
I removed the following external link added by User:64.231.142.162 since it was not a particularly noteworthy article about LiveJournal, compared to the many others already posted. If anyone feels otherwise and cares to add it back, the link is posted below: &mdash;Brim 06:19, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Pulling sense out of today&#8217;s informational chaos: LiveJournal as a site of knowledge creation and sharing (First Monday article)

I re-added the link removed above; First Monday is a reasonably important publication, and the article linked elucidates much of LiveJournal's popularity.


 * Seconded: Speaking as a researcher in the social software field, one who actually works specifically on LJ, First Monday is a very important PEER REVIEWED online journal on computing; LiveJournal appearing there legitimizes analysis of it within the academic computing world. Museumfreak 11:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots
It seems like this article could use more screenshots. Unfortunately, I do not have time to add them myself right now... --L33tminion | (talk) 17:18, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, a picture of Frank. --L33tminion | (talk) 17:19, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Frienditto
Perhaps something should be added to the controversies section about the recent Frienditto. I don't really know enough about the whole thing to feel qualified to write it, but it was all over LJ...


 * That needs its own article. --Bluejay Young 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Statistics
Where's the information on the number of paid users sourced from? It's not on the cited source, and I couldn't find it on the LiveJournal website, so I've removed it for now, but it would be useful to have with a current citation.--me_and 09:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * The cited page used to include this information... &mdash; Timwi 13:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I remember it being on there earlier. TrbleClef 17:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Login
Forgot to log in before making the last edit (03:54, 5 Jun 2005). Oops. It may be better under 'Controversies', but for now I was just aiming for slightly more NPOV. -- asciident 10:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Volunteer controversy, removing talk edits
First of all, Timwi, I think it's inappropriate for you to remove my edit to the Talk page without good reason. --asciident 22:32, 5 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I reverted because you changed all the single-quotes to HTML entities; I'm not sure how I could possibly miss that apart from that there was also an actual paragraph from you. I've put it back in. Seems like the HTML entities are your browser's work and not your own. Let's hope your browser will stop doing that once we switch to UTF-8. &mdash; Timwi 17:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, my browser seems to have changed them without my doing anything; sorry about the confusion. I'll use Firefox to make changes until I've sorted it out.  --asciident 00:15, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your change to the article, again, I think this is POV and would be better served under 'controversies' if it needs to be expanded upon. --asciident 22:32, 5 June 2005 (UTC)


 * The content of my additions surely needs to be mentioned - I'm sure you would agree, as a substantial amount of discussion is wasted on issues relating to volunteer fatigue and speculations regarding its causes. I didn't think I was being overly POV, but I'm not an NPOV expert so I won't argue. Of course you are perfectly entitled to feel free to re-structure things. That's what wikis are for. &mdash; Timwi 17:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't object to the content or idea of discussing the decreased reception to volunteer activity, but I think if we want to expand on it that we should briefly present two sides: frustration that efforts are still allowed though less and less useful or appreciated(?) as well as the fact that LJ has become more of a real corporation with many employees and less need for volunteer work, etc. That sort of thing.  As you can see, I've really not got a well-thought out restructure of the info, so I'll not be editing the article at this time.  --asciident 00:15, 8 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Re-inserting neutrality icon, Timwi. I feel one week a little premature to remove it; given that we're all volunteers and have limited spare time. Did a reversion since the removal was the only change made and it was quickest option. Whitehorse1

Removed two not notables
There were references to Mike Fireball (a humorist) and Jim Riley (a philosopher) in the notable users section. I removed these, as following the link for Mike Fireball's LJ reveals an entry which verifies he's not notable (not even a humorist) and Jim Riley returns no philosophy-related Google hits. Fallstorm 06:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I added Hanne Blank [] since she IS a published writer and activist who would meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia--she doesn't have her own article but is cited several times and perhaps does merit one. Also, Momus, the British sound and performance artist (he's in the Whitney Biennial, I think that qualifies as famous). Museumfreak 11:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there shouldnt be a notable section at all since all it does in encourage vandalism. Elfguy 18:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, beyond the tendencies to abuse that specific section how do we go about objectively defining who is and is not notable? There are sites devoted to keeping track of blogs of the famous, I don't really feel that wikipedia is the place for that. --enderu 03:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One obvious way is to say that anyone included must have a Wikipedia article - this is how it often seems to be handled on various "Lists of people" on Wikipedia (or more generally, "Lists of [whatever]". Whether they are notable enough to have their own article is something that can be debated on that article (talk pages, deletion proposals). Mdwh 15:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be setting the bar a little bit too high. There are people who are notable within LiveJournal who aren't notable to the rest of the world.  If you tried to write a Wikipedia article on them, the response on AfD would be "merge to LiveJournal". SchmuckyTheCat 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * True - I've no objection to including people without articles, if a case can be made for them. But I'd rather a list with the bar set "a bit too high", than having to get rid of it altogether.


 * I think this is only an issue for the last of these lists, "The instances of LiveJournal having a wider impact on the outside world include" (the first two lists require notability not simply "within LiveJournal") - in that case, anyone trying to add a prank entry such as their own LJ would have to explain what this wider impact was, and we could delete if there were no sources provided.


 * The problematic list seems to be only the first one, where people add LJs as being "a writer" or whatever, and we have no way of knowing how famous they are. Mdwh 17:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Social networking section
binary is not the best description for flist relationships. each user has 2 options to relate to each other user, but relationships aren't always mutual. Dave 01:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

also, banning on livejournal is removing permission to leave comments on a user's journal, not hiding them on a friends list.Dave 02:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Point 1: Correct. Reword this please.
 * Point 2: But banning a user does remove them from your friends of list, I think. SchmuckyTheCat 02:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not quite; it hides the user from displaying on your friends of list, but doesn't actually remove the unreciprocated relationship. -- Melissa Della 08:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Posting limits
Information on LJ introducing posting limits? --asilvahalo


 * There aren't any posting limits just now. I'll add the information when they go into actual effect for longer than just a day ;-) -- Timwi 15:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)