Talk:Michael Arrington/Archives/2013

Removed section - "Interview with Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo!"
I removed the following:


 * In May 2010, Arrington was involved in a verbal confrontation with CEO of Yahoo!, Carol Bartz. Arrington started the interview by asking Bartz, "So how the fuck are you?" To which she responded, "Is that appropriate?". Later in the interview, Bartz became perturbed with Arrington's criticism of the Yahoo! business model of conglomeration rather than single revenue source producers. Bartz then responded to Arrington saying, "you are involved in a very tiny company" and ended the exchange by telling him to "fuck off." Bartz received some support from bloggers for her response, including Guy Kawasaki who stated, "I respect Carol Bartz even more now."

I removed this because the sources are (a) a video, (b) a video, and (c) a tweet (which includes a url that is non-functional).

The purpose of WP:V and WP:RS is not only to require good sources (which none of the above are), but also to screen out trivia. If this interview wasn't reported by something resembling main stream media, then - as far as Wikipedia is concerned - it doesn't exist. Cobbling together three minor (to be generous) sources into a large paragraph of text is original research, a policy violation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Allegations of domestic violence and rape"
I am concerned that this section does not follow Wikipedia policies in several important regards. Per WP:BLP "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Additionally, our article doesn't cover what is arguably the most important fact about this situation so far (the only court proceeding of any kind), which is his libel suit against his accuser, as reported in the New York Times. I would argue that the section should be titled according to the story as presented in non-tabloid press, i.e. instead of "Allegations of domestic violence and rape" it should be entitled "Libel suit against X" or similar.

I'll also be posting at WP:BLPN to bring this to wider attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Covered by WP:BLP indeed, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The controversy has been written about in reputable places, including Arrington's current blog (Uncrunched) and the big one he founded (TechCrunch). It's a big deal, if for no other reason than that it casts a large shadow over whatever else he's doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.153.219 (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and takes protection of living people seriously. Wothout actual arrests etc., allegations are not worth a great deal. Collect (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jimbo and Collect above on this one. The sources given - gossip blogs - were simply not good enough to support such serious allegations. Unless better sourcing can be found, that material should be kept out of this article. Robofish (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)