Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus. – Avi 18:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seth Finkelstein
Fails notability. Ideogram 15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Question Everything about this article appears to be notable, and it has existed since 07:37, 28 February 2004. So why now? And really why at all? Fiddle Faddle 16:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it will ever be more than a stub. Note on the talk page Seth himself agrees with me that it should be deleted. It's nominated now because I just joined Wikipedia and noticed it. Ideogram 16:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm left pondering, now. If the article is notable, and the person about whom the article is written is notable, both of which seem to be correct at first sight, and if the article is substantially correct and non defamatory, I can't yet understand why it should not remain. An additional dilemma is "how does the community know that Seth Finkelstein the man is Seth Finkelstein the editor?" (no disrespect to either of you is intended in this remark, which is to do with provability, not personality) My opinion on the article currently is keep, simply because of these facts. Fiddle Faddle 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fiddle Faddle, I commend your willingness to be skeptical (how do you know I'm really that Seth Finkelstein?). In fact, I've had trouble with trolling-impostors before. I can authenticate myself by, for example, writing in advance about a blog posting. Or you can email me at sethf at-sign sethf.com (using a throwaway account if you don't want to reveal your own identity).
My view is that even though the article is non defamatory now, who knows what it will be tomorrow, or the next day? Notwithstanding WP:BIO, for people below a certain threshold of notability, Wikipedia biographies can be an "attractive nuisance". It says to every troll, flamer, and grudge-holder, "Here's a page about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear, and it won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia.". (reference: Seigenthaler affair). A living person really should have to meet a high standard of notability to be subjected to that.
I already maintain my own longstanding personal website if people want to read about me. While I do have significant vanity, I don't think I'm notable enough to warrant a dynamic biography.
-- Seth Finkelstein 22:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is an unusual case. What we need here is an experienced admin. It's not that I disbelieve you. But I think we genuinely need someone who has handled this type of thing before. No issues in revelaling my ID. My email is registered in my profile. Fiddle Faddle 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unusual for authentication question, or self-non-notability? -- Seth Finkelstein 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- In many ways "both". Equally I have no idea on a wikipedia stance on a person who wishes not to appear. Hence the need to refer to an experienced admin. You see, I think you are wiki-notable. Hence an article probably should exist. But your arguments against are also convincing. Fiddle Faddle 23:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unusual for authentication question, or self-non-notability? -- Seth Finkelstein 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is an unusual case. What we need here is an experienced admin. It's not that I disbelieve you. But I think we genuinely need someone who has handled this type of thing before. No issues in revelaling my ID. My email is registered in my profile. Fiddle Faddle 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fiddle Faddle, I commend your willingness to be skeptical (how do you know I'm really that Seth Finkelstein?). In fact, I've had trouble with trolling-impostors before. I can authenticate myself by, for example, writing in advance about a blog posting. Or you can email me at sethf at-sign sethf.com (using a throwaway account if you don't want to reveal your own identity).
- Wikipedia standards for Notability are that the person be more notable than the "average college professor". Seth has only one claim to fame, his involvement with the Censorware Project, which would barely qualify for a PhD thesis. Ideogram 17:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The EFF award (see article) is the clincher for me. Add the Censorware work and the award together and I see notability. Fiddle Faddle 18:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Have a look at Talk:Daniel Brandt and any one of the more recent AfD's there - consensus is that the person's own wishes are irrelevant unless the information is of legal significance e.g. defamatory, sub judice etc. I have no considered opinion on this particular article though. SM247My Talk 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the debate, but this is an area where policies are in flux. I'd argue that the criteria in WP:BIO should be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. In my view, there needs to be a balancing, where the incremental utility of the page has to be weighed against its potential to be used as a tool of harassment. This is always going to be a judgment call. But there should be more than "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life.". -- Seth Finkelstein 02:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As SM247 said, the wishes of the subject are no more germane than those of any other editor. Seth has been an editor for 1 year and 10 months, which is a lot longer than I have. He has a low number of edits, but enough that I feel his views should be listened to on non-notability the same way we would any other editor. (See also my disclosure in my opinion below.) GRBerry 01:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. In fact, some of my views here are informed by my Wikipedia editing, e.g. defending the pages of Jaron Lanier and Judith Krug against vandalism. It's not a pleasant experience. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As SM247 said, the wishes of the subject are no more germane than those of any other editor. Seth has been an editor for 1 year and 10 months, which is a lot longer than I have. He has a low number of edits, but enough that I feel his views should be listened to on non-notability the same way we would any other editor. (See also my disclosure in my opinion below.) GRBerry 01:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the debate, but this is an area where policies are in flux. I'd argue that the criteria in WP:BIO should be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. In my view, there needs to be a balancing, where the incremental utility of the page has to be weighed against its potential to be used as a tool of harassment. This is always going to be a judgment call. But there should be more than "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life.". -- Seth Finkelstein 02:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Have a look at Talk:Daniel Brandt and any one of the more recent AfD's there - consensus is that the person's own wishes are irrelevant unless the information is of legal significance e.g. defamatory, sub judice etc. I have no considered opinion on this particular article though. SM247My Talk 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- The EFF award (see article) is the clincher for me. Add the Censorware work and the award together and I see notability. Fiddle Faddle 18:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm left pondering, now. If the article is notable, and the person about whom the article is written is notable, both of which seem to be correct at first sight, and if the article is substantially correct and non defamatory, I can't yet understand why it should not remain. An additional dilemma is "how does the community know that Seth Finkelstein the man is Seth Finkelstein the editor?" (no disrespect to either of you is intended in this remark, which is to do with provability, not personality) My opinion on the article currently is keep, simply because of these facts. Fiddle Faddle 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it will ever be more than a stub. Note on the talk page Seth himself agrees with me that it should be deleted. It's nominated now because I just joined Wikipedia and noticed it. Ideogram 16:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep appears to meet WP:BIO. --Samael775 17:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BIO. --DarkAudit 18:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per recognition from the EFF, and notability of work. -- Adrian Lamo ·· 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Disclosure: While I don't expect Seth to remember me, I recognized the name on sight and was sure he was the Seth I knew as soon as I saw the picture in the article. I believe, having seen the article and checked the sources, that Seth meets the WP:BIO standard of "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." The EFF award establishes notability, the expert opinions in newsworthy court cases on the same topic provide additional evidence towards notability and more importantly verifiable information. These opinions don't yet cause him to also meet the "renown or notoriety" standard within WP:BIO. I've added Template:Blp as an appropriate caution on the page per WP:LIVING, and added the article to my watch list. GRBerry 01:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep If the EFF Pioneer Award is notable, then a recipient of that award is notable. Sorry, Seth, but it's too late to decline! --Jacknstock 02:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)- Delete Nobody cares about this Finkelstein guy except a narrow selection of geeks who happen to agree with his misguided campaigns. I would never have heard of him except for this afd nomination. It's not like he was mayor of a significant city or anything important like that. At most, merge with EFF Pioneer Award. --Jacknstock 23:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Jacknstock, et al. This is someone likely to be looked up - pioneers in any area have higher notability than the larger herds following. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All references except one are self-published primarys. The NYT article archived requires a subscription to view. The article itself is ambiguous about it's importance. As a computer specialist there aren't any reliable secondary sources and as an activist, there aren't any ads here about activities that have made national awareness. Ste4k 11:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Might be notable, I thought to myself Where do I know that name from... and remembered the DMCA business. Is he still the only one to sucessfully have one granted? Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that subjects should be able to have their articles deleted if they wish it. Only one hit in LexisNexis, but a few hits in major newspapers (NYTimes, Washington Post, etc). Most of the article seems sourcable, and I'll have a go at it in the morning. Kotepho 05:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Subjects do not have the right to prevent Wikipedia from having articles about them. That is long established here. It is irrelevant both whether subjects want the encyclopaedia to have articles about themselves or whether subjects want the encyclopaedia to not have articles about themselves. Our criteria for inclusion of biographies are the WP:BIO criteria. Articles either satisfy or fail to satisfy those criteria, upon which the wishes of their subjects have no bearing. Uncle G 15:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note WP:BIO says about criteria: "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included, meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included. Many Wikipedians oppose the use of this guideline.". It is by no means the last word on the subject.
I'm not trying to "prevent Wikipedia from having articles", in the sense of threatening legal action. I'm arguing that in the specific case of biographies of slightly notable living people, there is a significant problem of mismatched incentives, of "cost-shifting". For a very small potential benefit to itself, Wikipedia imposes a much larger potential negative cost on the person. This should be recognized as a Wikipedia structural issue. And until better procedures are in place to address the problem, that large potential negative cost should not be blithely imposed on unwilling people. -- Seth Finkelstein 23:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Were a person to be included in the national press against their will the newspaper would say "This person was notable for the item we reported about" and would refuse removal. Were the same person to be included in a printed encyclopaedia the same argument woudl apply. Just because wikipedia is not paper does not mean it will vary as an individual wills it. An exception would be in the UK under Data Protection Act 1998 legislation where the individual has the power to instruct an organisation to cease processing their data if they can prove that it causes damage or distress. It seems to me that would be an individual's only recourse. Otherwise, if wikipedia feels one is notable, one is notable. Fiddle Faddle 06:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neither a newspaper nor a printed encyclopedia allows random flamers to anonymously insert libel/defamation/smears into its articles, at any moment. That aspect puts Wikipedia in a class by itself. Appeals to the norms governing articles which have a process of accountability and responsibility are inappropriate for a context where that very lack of accountability and responsibility is the problem at issue.
- My objections don't come out of being a hermit (I'm not), or having some sort of Hollywood-style star image to maintain (I don't). Rather, I've concluded that the extremely poor quality control of Wikipedia biographies constitutes too much potential for harm, which should not be inflicted on unwilling people of minor (even if nonzero) notability. Rebutting along any of the general class of argument that it's a legal right (unless perhaps countered by a lawsuit, which is almost impossible for an ordinary person), is a very poor response. Something can be legal without being good ethics or good policy. And I believe proper policy in this case is to err on the side of least personal harm. -- Seth Finkelstein 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rubbish. Subjects of articles are not required to edit the biographical articles about them. They most definitely do not own those articles, in any way. This idea that there is an "imposed cost" is entirely spurious, and your entire argument fallacious because of it. Uncle G 11:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're missing my point. If some troll edits my biography to read e.g. "He was thought to have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, but never indicted" (example deliberately chosen, but you can use your imagination), that AFFECTS ME. I bear the cost of any reputational damage done. Wikipedia has no cost, except in the extraordinarily rare situation where the person who gets hit has enough power to make a fuss, generating bad publicity for Wikipedia. Otherwise, nobody home. This is deeply problematic. -- Seth Finkelstein 12:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- No-one is missing your point. Your point is simply fallacious. The same person can put up a web page in a vast number of places on the World Wide Web saying the same thing. That people can publish things about other people that damage their reputation has no bearing upon whether people warrant biographical articles in an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Repeating what I said above: "and it won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia.". Wikipedia is different from putting a page up on the web, because Wikipedia strips out attribution, and worse, adds an unwarranted air of authority. Or are you saying that Wikipedia articles are (not *should be*, but *are*) in general trusted no more than a crazy ranter's website? Wikipedia's poor troll control has a lot of bearing as to whether it should contain biographical articles on people who can be hurt by them. -- Seth Finkelstein 12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Repeating a fallacious argument does not make it any the less fallacious. You have also clearly not read the Wikipedia:General disclaimer that hyperlinked to at the bottom of every single page here, including the one that you are reading right now. Uncle G 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please remember to stay civil. This kind of comment is not productive. --Ideogram 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- (This should be read as if spoken in a very dry tone) I completely agree with you that "Repeating a fallacious argument does not make it any the less fallacious". You are also absolutely correct, I have not read the disclaimer. -- Seth Finkelstein 12:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Repeating a fallacious argument does not make it any the less fallacious. You have also clearly not read the Wikipedia:General disclaimer that hyperlinked to at the bottom of every single page here, including the one that you are reading right now. Uncle G 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Repeating what I said above: "and it won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia.". Wikipedia is different from putting a page up on the web, because Wikipedia strips out attribution, and worse, adds an unwarranted air of authority. Or are you saying that Wikipedia articles are (not *should be*, but *are*) in general trusted no more than a crazy ranter's website? Wikipedia's poor troll control has a lot of bearing as to whether it should contain biographical articles on people who can be hurt by them. -- Seth Finkelstein 12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- No-one is missing your point. Your point is simply fallacious. The same person can put up a web page in a vast number of places on the World Wide Web saying the same thing. That people can publish things about other people that damage their reputation has no bearing upon whether people warrant biographical articles in an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 12:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're missing my point. If some troll edits my biography to read e.g. "He was thought to have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, but never indicted" (example deliberately chosen, but you can use your imagination), that AFFECTS ME. I bear the cost of any reputational damage done. Wikipedia has no cost, except in the extraordinarily rare situation where the person who gets hit has enough power to make a fuss, generating bad publicity for Wikipedia. Otherwise, nobody home. This is deeply problematic. -- Seth Finkelstein 12:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Were a person to be included in the national press against their will the newspaper would say "This person was notable for the item we reported about" and would refuse removal. Were the same person to be included in a printed encyclopaedia the same argument woudl apply. Just because wikipedia is not paper does not mean it will vary as an individual wills it. An exception would be in the UK under Data Protection Act 1998 legislation where the individual has the power to instruct an organisation to cease processing their data if they can prove that it causes damage or distress. It seems to me that would be an individual's only recourse. Otherwise, if wikipedia feels one is notable, one is notable. Fiddle Faddle 06:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note WP:BIO says about criteria: "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included, meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included. Many Wikipedians oppose the use of this guideline.". It is by no means the last word on the subject.
- Subjects do not have the right to prevent Wikipedia from having articles about them. That is long established here. It is irrelevant both whether subjects want the encyclopaedia to have articles about themselves or whether subjects want the encyclopaedia to not have articles about themselves. Our criteria for inclusion of biographies are the WP:BIO criteria. Articles either satisfy or fail to satisfy those criteria, upon which the wishes of their subjects have no bearing. Uncle G 15:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete For reasons outlined all throughout this page, just to make it official -- Seth Finkelstein 09:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. In borderline notability cases, I'd rather err on the side of inclusion. Ask yourself, "Would someone want to know who this is, 50 years from now?" Likely yes, especially as digital rights issues escalate into the stratosphere. Then ask yourself, "Are this person's attempts at self-documentation (personal Web site) likely to be around longer than an encyclopedia?" Likely no. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Change to delete per Seth Finkelstein.
-
- Ha-ha-ha. I'm flattered, thank you. People barely know what I've done now, outside of a very small group of specialists. You have no idea how many times I've had to explain to someone that I did a certain result years ago, or had better material than work done by much more supported and publicized researchers. I would be astounded if anyone would want to know who I was, 50 years from now. Anyway, my website is in the Internet Archive, so it'll last at least as long as that lasts. And I wouldn't put any bets on Wikipedia lasting 50 years, or even 10, or even past the next tech recession. I'd really rather not have to worry about being a mudsling-target in the present. -- Seth Finkelstein 17:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, you have me convinced. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. If you think this is draining, you should try participating in the deletion process for fart and sex joke articles. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Seth if your issue is with Wikipedia policy maybe you should take it to the village pump. --Ideogram 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I did, in a way - a few weeks ago, I crossed paths with Jimmy Wales at a conference, and took the occasion to bring up this very point to him (I didn't want to mention it since that sounds like name-dropping, but if you ask, I think it's reasonable to relate it). The conversation was amicable, and I was hopeful I'd planted a seed for future policy revisions. As to making a formal policy proposal myself, I'm not sure I have the requisite community status to do it *effectively*, and the amount of arguing I'd have to go through is daunting (even this discussion has been very draining). I expect the issue is going to come to a head sometime in the future, and I'm not eager to be a big activist on it. I figured here that if I could opt-out myself at the relatively low cost of several discussion comments, that would be a reasonable outcome. -- Seth Finkelstein 18:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable (and, for those complaining about the NYTimes, it's a free registration). (And I have an article here on Wikipedia, as well.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Um, I'm not on the same wavelength as Seth. However, I do believe he is somewhat notable with regard to certain civil rights issues. And I think he or his Censorware Project made up the term "censorware," is that correct Seth, and that term is very effective from his point of view in pushing his particular agenda. A valuative term as I hear it called. Google Censorware and Seth appears to have been effective in getting out his message. So he appears to have had an effect on people. I say keep but I'm not an expert wikipedian. --SafeLibraries 03:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment, but I only wish I were anywhere near as effective as some people think I am. I have a whole series of jokes about this ("If I was funded by pornographers - news to me - which ones, and how much did I get? Was it an obscene amount, or merely indecent? Where's my invitation to the Playboy Mansion? How come I don't have a press agent? ..."). I say I popularize the term "censorware", I don't claim to have coined it (it seemed a pretty obvious formation, given firmware, wetware, middleware, etc., and later, spyware). My point is that the specialized achievements I have shouldn't make me fair game for the character-assassination free-for-all which is an unfortunate potential result of Wikipedia's flaws. -- Seth Finkelstein 05:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Such wonderful irony. Seth Finkelstein is now far more notable than he was at the start of this trail of words. And scope for googling him is increased substantially. Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Lord, I hope not! I have made no more of a difference in the world today than last week. All I've done now is participate in a Wikipedia discussion thread. I respectfully suggest that if there's any change in my notability from that, and receiving a few compliments, it shows more about social effects than verifiability. Look, from being on the net for twenty years, I have a huge Google count. It doesn't mean anything, except that I've wasted entirely too much time in my life. -- Seth Finkelstein 07:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Firmware is firm stuff. Middleware is stuff in the middle. Wetware, well I never heard of that. Spyware, well that spys on you. Censorware, well that censors you. No it doesn't! Pornblockware, That keeps you from seeing porn by blocking it without devaluing it such as would antipornware. Shouldn't it be called pornblockware? I think that is far more accurate than censorware. After all, that is the purpose of the software. Censorship is not the purpose, and indeed US v. ALA says the use of pornblockware is not censorship. --SafeLibraries 13:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Umm, "Firmware" is software that's encoded in hardware, not "firm stuff". And the makers of spyware would probably like their wares called helpfulconsumerware, or some such. As I've said: Regarding censorSHIP, I'd say "censorware" is a derived coinage, in the same way we talk about "a taxing task" (even though that doesn't involve paying money to the government), or "policing the language" (even though that doesn't involved men in blue uniforms from the government). Sigh. I've been through this a lot. I think it's off-topic here. -- Seth Finkelstein 14:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, Seth, thanks for your help. Hey, I'd like to submit amicus briefs in certain cases. How do I do it? How do I get notice of cases that I could submit such briefs if I wanted? Thanks again. --SafeLibraries 02:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Basically, ask a lawyer in an allied activist organization to help guide you through the maze of requirements. The requirements are all public information, but the details vary a lot depending on the specifics of the case (Federal vs. State, type of court, etc.) -- Seth Finkelstein 04:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, Seth, thanks for your help. Hey, I'd like to submit amicus briefs in certain cases. How do I do it? How do I get notice of cases that I could submit such briefs if I wanted? Thanks again. --SafeLibraries 02:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Umm, "Firmware" is software that's encoded in hardware, not "firm stuff". And the makers of spyware would probably like their wares called helpfulconsumerware, or some such. As I've said: Regarding censorSHIP, I'd say "censorware" is a derived coinage, in the same way we talk about "a taxing task" (even though that doesn't involve paying money to the government), or "policing the language" (even though that doesn't involved men in blue uniforms from the government). Sigh. I've been through this a lot. I think it's off-topic here. -- Seth Finkelstein 14:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Firmware is firm stuff. Middleware is stuff in the middle. Wetware, well I never heard of that. Spyware, well that spys on you. Censorware, well that censors you. No it doesn't! Pornblockware, That keeps you from seeing porn by blocking it without devaluing it such as would antipornware. Shouldn't it be called pornblockware? I think that is far more accurate than censorware. After all, that is the purpose of the software. Censorship is not the purpose, and indeed US v. ALA says the use of pornblockware is not censorship. --SafeLibraries 13:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Lord, I hope not! I have made no more of a difference in the world today than last week. All I've done now is participate in a Wikipedia discussion thread. I respectfully suggest that if there's any change in my notability from that, and receiving a few compliments, it shows more about social effects than verifiability. Look, from being on the net for twenty years, I have a huge Google count. It doesn't mean anything, except that I've wasted entirely too much time in my life. -- Seth Finkelstein 07:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Such wonderful irony. Seth Finkelstein is now far more notable than he was at the start of this trail of words. And scope for googling him is increased substantially. Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment, but I only wish I were anywhere near as effective as some people think I am. I have a whole series of jokes about this ("If I was funded by pornographers - news to me - which ones, and how much did I get? Was it an obscene amount, or merely indecent? Where's my invitation to the Playboy Mansion? How come I don't have a press agent? ..."). I say I popularize the term "censorware", I don't claim to have coined it (it seemed a pretty obvious formation, given firmware, wetware, middleware, etc., and later, spyware). My point is that the specialized achievements I have shouldn't make me fair game for the character-assassination free-for-all which is an unfortunate potential result of Wikipedia's flaws. -- Seth Finkelstein 05:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- When does this close? 1 July was the nomination. Surely this is over-ripe? Fiddle Faddle 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
