Talk:Craig Newmark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
-
[edit] Classifieds
Craig, if you don't like people pointing out that animal sales are, in fact, permitted on craigslist, then definitely, change your policy. It is a valid angle of the article for a few reasons, not the least of which is that stories about your free animal sales ads and the- shall we say- unpleasant results of those free ads, keep popping up in local SF Bay Area newspapers. Craig, you are like those Republicans who keep trying to drill for oil on wildlife refuges. I think if there wasn't even a drop of oil there, they would still want to destroy them. Similarly, I don't see even a hint of motive for your facilitating dog breeding and sales, except for the buzz/thrill of cruelty. -User:Professor Von Pie
- Does this discussion even belong here? I say we move the following details where they belong: the craigslist article.
- Except for employers posting help wanted ads, all the site's ads are free of charge, benefiting many people who would otherwise have to pay for newspaper charges. Many San Francisco Bay Area animal advocates have urged Newmark to stop permitting animals to be bred and sold using his free venue, which is in part responsible for the excessive breeding of dogs for profit. Unwanted dogs wind up sheltered and often euthanized at the public's expense. Newmark's policy is that whatever is legal to sell can be sold on craigslist; whatever is illegal cannot.
- jareha 19:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I knew it! I expected something to appear within MINUTES after I corrected the article, which, like Reagan's, is under constant surveillance. Listen, I live in the SF Bay Area, and an article about Craig Newmark without dead pit bulls is like an article about Grandma Moses without paintings. -User:Professor Von Pie
The definitive source for craigslist's policy on pet ads is it's terms of use - which clearly ban ads for the sale of animals - with 7 million new ads monthly, and only 18 employees, craigslist relies on its users to enforce site policies through the flagging system. Note what the cited SF Gate article fails to mention, namely that while the Chronicle/SFGate allows and profits from animal-for-sale ads in its own publications, craigslist actually prohibits such ads. If you want to continue with the dead pit bull rant, why not do it with respect to publications that welcome & profit from ads for animal sales? -anonymous, but guess who!
Craig, you do allow the sale of animals as long as the animals in question are legal to sell. You do not permit, for example, selling wolves, since wolves are illegal to sell. You make the tortured argument that since you prohibit the sale of wolves, and wolves are animals, craigslist prohibits the sales of animals. What is particularly annoying is that obviously you know you are doing something wrong, and have no problem with it. The animals sold by the Chronicle are small potatoes to the ones you crank out with free ads, placed by people who ordinarily wouldn't have enough money in their trailers to buy a Chron newspaper, much less a Chron ad. Craig, if you are so concerned with your image, why not just do the right thing? -User:Professor Von Pie
Wrong. Retail sales of cats and dogs are also prohibited on the site. Read the terms of use. Read the posting form for pets. =Take a Wild Guess Who!
Oh, now we have to get into the definition of retail, eh? Look, Craig, your obvious approval of selling animals is going to bite you in the butt whenever you drop the other shoe and run for public office. This is what you are known for. Blood, guts, fighting, breeding, the ear and nose of little Nicholas Fabish flying through the air. Craig, it is not going to go away. If you can't understand the moral and ethical aspects, then consider your future plans to rule San Francisco, and... tomorrow the world. -Professor Von Pie
retail: The sale of goods or commodities in small quantities directly to consumers. -Man of Mystery Who Above All Hates Being Told What to Do
amoral: neither moral nor immoral; lacking sensibility or judgment with regard to what is right or wrong. -Professor Von Pie
come on, don't try to reason with professor von pie...there is no reasoning with a crazy PETA member -Mystery Guest, Hint: Initials are C. N.
Craig, how on earth did a nice Jewish boy from a decent family in New Jersey become an accessory to pit bull breeding, trafficking and fighting? It doesn't make any sense. You could stop this madness right now. Get counseling and treatment about your antipathy toward animals, among other problems. -Professor Von Pie