Talk:The Freecycle Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Propaganda

Do you have a freecycle success story? Why not post it here!?

--egstcm 09:37, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Because that would not really fit into the encyclopedic format.--Palnatoke 09:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is Freecycle a social network service? --Palnatoke 22:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Possibly a propaganda. Be bold and correct it. Pavel Vozenilek 01:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


"Propaganda" is pretty harsh. The Freecycle Network introduces people who live near each other and share the same ideas about reducing waste and being economical. One of the fairly distinctive features of Freecycle is that it is local in every community it exists in. When you join a Freecycle group, all the people you communicate with live in your community. I guess it creates a social network in a different way than most other websites. But I do think it falls within the definition.
--Manchineel 15:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


On most cases, FreeCycle is a great program. It teaches people to share what they have, and instead of throwing things out that maybe useful to another person then to just.. give it away! Instead of having a garage sale, you can just put an offer and the item on the freecycle group and you are liable to get dozens of replies.

Kimsan 01:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Kimsan

The "controversy" section is accurate--I followed up on the editor's link and he's a collector of legal controversies in general, and not a freecycle member. I'm intimately involved in this case and can verify it's a genuine legal dispute, and TFN has been using some questionable tactics. For example, the injunction against Oey in Arizona prohibited him from making "any comments disparaging TFN's possible trademark." Under that rationale, I'm not allowed to say, "You know, Kleenex really shouldn't be a trademark anymore."

The analogy between Craig and Deron Beal is flawed; TFN wants both to increase salaries from "donations," *and* maintain 501(c) non-profit status. That's the impetus for the trademark suit, which asks, can non-TFN members "freecycle," or do they have to freeshare? The entry as-is objectively reflects very real troubles for the company.

[edit] Controversy

It seems strange to me that the 'Controversy' section lists 'a news story' as the source. It would be significantly better to actually quote the news source. With a possible link.

--Manchineel 16:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I am resisting the urge to completely re-edit the 'Controversy' section. It is not NPOV. Does the Craigslist page bash Craig Newmark for getting paid? This is the work of a disgruntled Freecycle member. Can someone else take a stab at making it more neutral? --Manchineel 05:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I expected it to, especially when I added the section a few weeks ago[1]. (Read more about it by visiting freecycle groups' message archives at the time.) I think the news article[2] is NPOV -- go have a look at it and you're welcome to improve this section. --Perfecto 02:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I visited craigslist, as mentioned, and found a similar yet usable paragraph:
On August 13, 2004, Craig announced on his blog that auction giant eBay had purchased a 25% stake in the company from a former principal. Some fans of craigslist have expressed concern that this development will affect the site's longtime non-commercial nature, but it remains to be seen what ramifications the change will actually have.
Is this the NPOV you seek, Manchineel? --Perfecto 17:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

Speaking of NPOV/propaganda problems...how the heck did the section "Like Wildfire" ever make it past regular Wikipedians? It's slanted so horribly pro as to make any anti slant of the "Controversy" section it replaced look mild by comparison.

I've placed the problem section below and removed it from the main page, and I've replaced the most NPOV version of "Controversy" on the main page.

The section below should NOT be placed back into the article until it is cleaned up a whole heck of a lot to conform to NPOV standards.—chris.lawson (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is that there are different people who are interested in editing this page with different agendas. There are people who are upset about the way Freecycle is managed and there are people who are working inside of the Freecycle Network who are concerned about the way the other group is trying to portray Freecycle. My personal decision has been to generally watch this page, without making any edits. I reserve the right to make edits when I am fairly certain that I can do so in an NPOV manner. But in general I recognize that I am not really the person who can make an NPOV article.

Please don't try to make this a page to vent your frustrations. This is an encyclopedia. We should try to have some constructive discussion on this page about how to move forward with this page in a constructive manner. Just making rash edits that you know (or maybe don't know) are going to be quickly reverted is not a good long term solution.

--Manchineel 04:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There's been a recent outburst of anti-TFN changes, and an undiscussed NPOV categorization (partially justified by all the aforementioned changes) by a partisan editor. I've gone over the recent anti-TFN additions, and found pratically everything to be as redundant as it was partisan. Hence this is back to the last pre-anti-TFN-cluster edit. I would also ask that the NPOV alert categorization is a cop-out - if there are PoV issues, then edit the page, or at the very least put what you see as the issues on the discussion page. That way, there's a hope of getting them ironed out. -- SagePose, 30 December 2005

That was me who put the NPOV tag on- yes, I'm a Freecycle group moderator, but I don't know if that makes me 'partisan'- I certainly don't feel that Freecycle or anything esle for that matter is above critisism, and sorry if tagging was seen as a 'cop out', but I don't have the time to engage with this article right now- however it did seem to be one long list of critisisms against TFN, not nuetral at all, and needed to be flagged accordingly. Well done for the rewriting efforts you've just put in quercus robur 17:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This article should have the NPOV tag. There are more controversies listed than any mention of the good that has been done. An example of one bias is in the Structure section-- I edited it to read Board of Directors-- Deron Beal, Jennifer Columbus, Jolie Sibert. Rather than the relationships of the board (which were previously mentioned). My edit was reverted or reedited. This seems biased, like a "dig".71.35.149.207 15:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 2 January 2006
Curious that user 71.35.149.207 is so keen on names! Please sign in, and give yourself at least something more useful than an IP address. The Board of Directors change wasn't itself reverted, it was included in a mass reversion of lots of anti-TFN changes, so hardly a 'dig'. Seems to me that in this case the relationships between the Board memebrs are of more general interest than the names, although it would look better with both - why don't you do that? A numerical balance between ups and downs is a naive view of 'balance' - NPoV should reflect the way things are rather than the tidy way we might like the world to be. There is another problem with this page - which is separating out the generic meme of freecycling from the non-profit organization which is best known for it. My personal preference would be for a page that speaks in general about the activity, rather like recycling, with references to the various groups and directories helping to organize it, and full credit to Mr Beal for evangelizing it. That would remove the whole point of having TFN controversies and Board of Director's listings in the first place. SagePose, 2 January 2006


[edit] Cleanup

I tidied up the article somewhat...

  • The line
A year later, the global web site is no more, although $45K has been paid to Beal in salary, and an unstated sum on legal expenses.
makes no sense to me because it says TFN received the money in Feb 2005, so not a year has passed. Can someone please elaborate?
  • Wikipedia is not a link repository. It's not Wikipedia's job to "promote" alternatives to Freecycle. It's not Wikipedia's job to list websites that discuss the controversies. HTML links added to the article must be either directly related to Freecycle or are references or reliable sources.

Any comments? -- Perfecto Canada 01:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with you about linking to websites that criticize Freecycle. Many Wikipedia articles have external links to critics. In the interest of NPOV we should recognize that some people oppose Freecycle and provide links to them, such as the BusinessWeek blog post. Furthermore it is inappropriate for you to add warnings to the article as if they reflect Wikipedia policy; they don't. Rhobite 02:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for respecting my rewrite. OK I concede with your revert, except for the "Alternatives" section. If we are offering alternatives, we should offer them as articles, not as links. If tonight, say, I register the "FreeReUseWorld.com" domain, and put up as a yet-another-freecycle-alternative website, will WP let me put my link in there tomorrow morning? -- Perfecto Canada 03:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that the Category:Freecycling has been depoliticized, I'm not certain that the links to TFN alternatives are appropriate in this page. If people want to find out other regiving network they can follow those links, and there's no more reason to put Freesharing or CurbCycle on the TFN page as there is to put TFN on the Freesharing page. I can also see that others may feel Regiving should be a topic rather than a category, but that's a discussion for another page. -- SagePose 8th January 2006

More external links removed recently by me and RexNL. The alternative regiving groups can have themselves listed in the generic regiving page, and not clutter up the Freecycle Network page, which is specifically describing the Arizona non-profit corporation. SagePose 24th January 2006

FYI - my two alterations - I update the link so the name was entirely highlighted for the Group Outreach so it doesn't say "8" and says what the link is, and I deleted the duplicate link of the Grist article. Don't need the same article there twice. I'd like to know if I can add some external links that have more recent articles? Dora

[edit] Lots of theories

Someone anonymous insists on this paragraph under "Controversies":

Lots of theories - Remember that there are many differing opinions about this, and many of them are incorrect. FACT: The plan to create a new website does not include shutting down Yahoo groups at all. Using the new site will be entirely optional. FACT: Sites that use the name without authorization are asked not to. FACT: Freecycle requires it's groups to be a spam, begging, scam, and abuse free area for members. Groups which do not enforce these rules often leave the network because they want to run it their own way.

Is there truth to any of this? If yes, then we'll repair the article. If no, then someone should stop insisting, please. -- Perfecto Canada 04:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph has some opinions, but not much in way of fact.

  • The goal, stated on the Freecycle website (http://www.freecycle.org/freecyclopedia.php?tpl=food) is to get off YahooGroups. Groups that don't follow current procedure are removed, so it is reasonable for Freecycle groups to expect to be forced off YahooGroups in the future. The trademark application reinforces this, since it's worded to suggest that Freecycle provides the service directly rather than merely a directory of YahooGroups.
  • The experience of groups that have been purged is the arrival of a Cease and Desist email, copied to YahooGroups, and the removal of the group days later. In some cases, the C+D has been marked as spam by group owners Yahoo mail accounts, and the group deleted with no effective notice. Example email at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freecyclenext/message/1884
  • The point about spam or scams makes no sense - there is no evidence that TFN is pursuing anything other than alleged trademark violations. Sounds like special pleading to me. Active groups with many members contributing to the freecycle goal of keeping stuff out of landfill have been deleted. --- SagePose, 13th November 2005
Thank you for coming back, SagePose, and helping us clean up the article. (Care to create an account?) FYI, the freecyclenext message is for members only. Also, can you double check the three Grist links you added? The trademark article is misnamed. -- Perfecto Canada 17:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the dual link to the Grist articles - there was only one. Dora Jan 2006

[edit] Freecyclehubbub

Is http://freecyclehubbub.blogspot.com/ really a notable resource? It keeps getting put back in the article. Yahoo and Google report no links pointing to this rant. -- Perfecto Canada 17:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'useless intro'

Restored '13 words' of 'useless intro', otherwise the section has no context. quercus robur 00:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. Do not join independent clauses with a comma. There are a number of controversial issues concerning the Freecycle Network, these include; is two grammatically-complete clauses. Use a semicolon.
  2. Use a colon after an independent clause to introduce a list of particulars, not a semicolon.
  3. I think the Controversies heading followed by a bulleted list does the same job as the 13-word intro. Well, OK then — at least it's not "There had been or are several issues that are somewhat controversial concerning the current operation of the Freecycle Network beginning at one point of time in the past. In fact, these controversial issues includes at least the following:". :) -- Perfecto Canada 01:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Vandalism

The wikipedia page has recently been the subject of some controversy within The Freecycle Network, and one consequence of that appears to be repeated attempts to remove any hint of criticism from this page. I'll continue to keep an eye on it, whilst I realize there are some further steps required to iron out all POVs in the text as it stands. Having personal friends who are active official Freecycle moderators, as well as being in touch with both anti- and non-freecycle groups, I believe puts me in a good position to do so. On that note I would like to correct the attacks made on TFN networks as described to me: this page is _not_, as claimed by Deron Beal on e-mails shown to me, the work of ex-mods with dubious personal histories. -- SagePose - 2 Dec 05


If it's true that "this page is not the work of ex-mods with dubious personal histories", then why is Tim Oey's name all over it? He is trying to take the Freecycle name for his own personal uses.

[edit] Controversies section

Deron Beal recently replied on a 'point by point' basis to the critisisms contained in the 'controversies' section on the Freecycle 'UK Modsquad' email list... It would be good to integrate these responses into the article, although its not something i have the time or energy to do, it would be good if somebody who doesn't have a 'stake' in Freecycle could have a crack at this in an NPOV manner (I'm pro-Freecycle (it works for me..) so would probably be biased...)

NB. He posted lots of other stuff that replies to critics, but this specifically is relevant to the wikipedia article as it currently stands quercus robur 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is cut from a private Yahoo group. Do you have the permission of the poster or those quoted to put it here? Given current levels of paranoia within and without Freecycle about copyrights and trademarks, I've removed this for now. If you do have permission then feel free to put it back in and I, or another volunteer, will integrate it. If I do it, I'll check it out with some Freecycle moderator, and non-Freecycle, contacts first to iron out the PoV. SagePose 20:12 15 December 2005

Deron Beal posted his replys to the points on he UK modsquad list- I asked him via the modsquad if he'd mind if I posted this on wikipedia- his reply was that he personally didn't want to get involved with editing the wikipedia article due to not having time for such pursuits, but didn't actually specify outright one way or the other whether he gave permission for me to post his comments here- I just sort of assumed it was OK, but you may be right re. copyright issues, I'll try and get more specific permission....
cheers quercus robur 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Office

I have locked the page as Office for 24 hours, pending the investigation of certain claims. Please bear with this. There are over 1 million other articles that can be improved. Dannyisme 20:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

One million, one hundred twenty-one thousand, six hundred fifty three articles, in fact. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What claims? You know, I think people would be a lot more accepting of the Office policy if you'd really tell us what's going on instead of giving us the "stay away" bullshit. Meneth 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And now we begin to see the Achilles Heel of the Wikipedia concept. Screwballs with their own personal axe to grind try to further their agenda by twisting the facts or spinning them their way.
I'm concerned that '24 hours' is currently 5 days and counting... quercus robur 08:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they are following the model of the TV show "24" where you have to wait a week for each hour to elapse? I think the truth is, Wikipedia has got their tit in a wringer because they allow anyone to post whatever the hell they want. And, they are going to get their butts in legal trouble real soon.
I hope that isn't a legal threat to the Wikimedia foundation... thats usually grounds for blocking. 24.50.211.226 12:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that since this is taking so long that this page should be taken out of "office" and have the label changed to "This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.)"

I'm concerned that '24 hours' is now 12 days and counting quercus robur 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV and other Problems with this article

Overall, the entry has a cultural bias: it is obviously written by someone in UK English and not American English. This needs to be neutralized. (Or should I say "neutralised"?)

  1. 1 The first sentence is clumsy: "The Freecycle Network (often abbreviated TFN) is a corporation registered as a non-profit", would better read: "The Freecycle Network is a non-profit corporation registered in Arizona."
  1. 2 including the abbreviation TFN is just juvenile and is there only to allow the editor to avoid typing "The Freecycle Network
  1. 3 “Background”: "It has since grown, reaching into 50 countries and involving over a million members in over 3,000 groups worldwide." contradicts what is written in the first paragraph.
  1. 4 “Background”: "On April 2004, it incorporated under Arizona law, although it has not yet achieved 501(c)(3) status." is a clumsy sentence. 501(c)(3) status has nothing to do with incorporation in Arizona. 501(c)(3) status is a tax classification of the Internal Revenue Service. Also the phrase "although it has not yet achieved" is a clause that is not grammatically or contextually linked to any previously given information. It is introducing a new fact irrelevant to its state registration. Tax status should be a separate sentence or idea if it is even relevant to the average Wikipedia user at all.
  1. 5 “Background”: In my opinion, the inclusion of the board of director's names and relationships here is only meant to "out" them and attempt to intimate that the org is run by "insiders" for nefarious purposes. The simple link to the board of directors is adequate.
  1. 6 “Background”: "TFN plan to move..." is a ridiculous grammatical error
  1. 7 “Background”: The discussion of "centralisation" plans is outdated. I am of the opinion that "early 2006" has now passed and it hasn't happened. Better to say "The Freecycle Network is exploring plans to host local groups on their own proprietary platform."
  1. 8 Overall, the "Controversies” section is just plain silly. It gets into very topical and date-sensitive accounting and other minutiae that really have very little relevance to someone trying to find out what Freecycle is all about. This needs to be radically simplified. Notable is that the "Controversies" section absurdly out sizes the main definitional entry. That in itself should be a large flaming red flag that the entry is not NPOV and demonstrates an organized campaign to discredit and smear Freecycle.
  1. 9 “Corporate Sponsorship” entry: "Further criticism was provoked by a decision to take paid Google ads on the Freecycle web site..." There are not, and never have been paid Google on the main Freecycle web site. There are paid Google ads on the Freecycle Finder Tool which is a separate, optional tool usable only by Freecycle group members. This needs to be clarified.
  1. 10 “Corporate Sponsorship” entry: "contrary to the initial stated principles" What initial stated principles? This refers to something that has no documentation.
  1. 11 “Corporate Sponsorship” entry: "Beal's green ambassador role for WMI" The link that this points to had nothing to do with anything that mentions the phrase: "green ambassador".
  1. 12 "Use of Funds" entry refers to a date that has passed as being in the future.
  1. 13 "Use of Funds” entry also discusses the corporate board structure. This doesn't make sense.
  1. 14 "Trademark" entry indicates that Beal has shut down groups. This is untrue. Freecycle has never shut down groups. It has only asked that they sever their connection with Freecycle and cease using the Freecycle mark. Freecycle does not have the ability to shut down a Yahoo Group, only Yahoo can do that.
  1. 14 Trademark" entry: references to freecycle.com by Beal were obviously hypothetical and attempts to create irony are obviously not NPOV. References to domain squatters to prove a point are foolish. Does the entry on wikipedia.org make note of wikipedia.ws?
  1. 15 Trademark" entry: use of the terms freecycling, freecyclers, etc. is part of an organized campaign to genericize and dilute the trademark Freecycle. Supporting documentation can be found at the campaign HQ: http://greenribbon.us/
  1. 16 The remainder of the "Trademark" entry is a shill for Tim Oey who has filed lawsuits trying to strip the trademark protection from The Freecycle Network. This lawsuit is ongoing and this information is not NPOV.
  1. 17 "Centralization" entry: So what? Is there any usuable information there? It refers to a controversy about a vaporous plan to move to a new system. Maybe it should say something like: "The Freecycle Network is exploring plans to host local groups on their own proprietary platform, but nothing of substance has materialized and some are concerned about the possible changes."
  1. 18 "Centralization" entry: in reference to "The concentration of infrastructure..." to make it more NPOV it should say something like "As the organization has grown, the day to day policy and decision making process has been concentrated more in the hands of a few department heads. In the embryonic stages of its growth, input was provided on even the smallest details by a wider body of members." The "modsquad" "HUB" and "OIDG" are technical, proprietary terms of The Freecycle Network and would require in-depth explanations that would be lost on the average Wikipedia user.
  1. 19 "Centralization" entry: in reference to the sentence: "Former colleagues of Beal cite his behavior as an example of so-called founderitis" It seems quite childish to include name-calling by former volunteers in an "encyclopedia" article.
  1. 20 "Removed Groups" entry: This issue has been adequately addressed by the paragraph on "Trademark".
  1. 21 "Removed Groups" entry: "As of February 2006" has formatting issues
  1. 22 "Removed Groups" entry: Freesharing and [10] links don't jibe. [10] points to an outside link to something called sharingisgiving
  1. 23 "Removed Groups" entry: "As of February 2006" sentence makes unsubstantiated charges
  1. 24 "Dismissing dissenters" entry: has laughably poor grammar and is a horribly long run-on sentence.
  1. 25 "Dismissing dissenters" entry: is not NPOV and is somewhat bizarre. Is it truly controversial that an organization might dismiss volunteers with whom it is at cross-purposes with? Also see my comments on Freecycle closing groups under "Trademark"
  1. 26 "External Links": contains almost exclusively news stories. Until I posted a few positive news stories, it contained exclusively negative news stories. Definitley not NPOV. Also not the proper Wikipedia use of the "External Links" module.
  1. 27 "External Links": On entry says "Contains copies of court filings against Freecycle "Where are the links to lawsuits filed by Freecycle? Another obvious NPOV violation. Also, does Wikipedia want to be in the business of publishing blow by blow lawsuits and countersuits as they occur?
  1. 28 "The Freecycle Network structure": "The Freecycle Rag" is nitwitted. It doesn't have anything to do with the corporate structure and was obviously posted by a disgruntled former moderator from Brevard County Florida. It's also commercial promotion for some recording artist and a thinly veiled attempt to further the campaign to genericize the trademarked term Freecycle. This entry is also shoddily written.
  1. 29 "References": the majority of links in this section are simply duplicates of those in the section above it. Needs consolidation
  1. 30 "References": the "Freecycle Statement of Centralization Plans" link does not link to a document of that name.


Some comments on the unsigned point by point above:

2. TFN is a common abbriviation of The Freecycle Network and is worthy of the sentance used to say so.

14. TFN has through it's contacts with Yahoo caused several hundred Free Recycling groups to be shut down. Your statement is true that Deron did not flip the switch, but TFN did make the call to the person who did delete the groups. Symantics.

27. GreenRibbon.us contains copies of both the lawsuits against TFN and the suits filed by TFN against Tim Oey. The description for the link should be updated to reflect this.

--Razmear 04:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


2. OK - I can live with the abbreviation

14. It should be noted that all groups deleted by Yahoo had over two weeks to remove the Freecycle mark from their pages and received two notices from Freecycle.org and one from Yahoo's trademark department.

27. GreenRibbon.us is a page in violation of U.S. Trademark law and is a source for rants against Freecycle. Link just probably shouldn't be there.


(above person, please sign your posts, ok)

Anyways, we're OK with #2, however your rebuttal on #14 is not accurate. Just this past week the groups of an FCNext moderator were taken down without any warning and her IDs were killed by Yahoo. Even her non-free-recycling groups were killed off by this latest attack. 27. Please explain how GreenRibbon.us is in violation of US trademark law. The Freecycle logo is not used, and trademark law specifically protects using the name of an organization or company to spread information about that company. By your logic anyone saying I like Coke, or I don't like Pepsi on a website would be in violation of US TradeMark law, which obviously is not the case.

--Razmear 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bold textRazmear- you may not legally use a trademarked name that belongs to someone else in your logo. That's why GreenRibbon is in violation of U.S. and EU trademark laws.


I can't answer for the actions of Yahoo. They do whatever they want. It's their game. How do you know this person is telling you the truth?

[edit] Alleged 'cultural bias'

Overall, the entry has a cultural bias: it is obviously written by someone in UK English and not American English. This needs to be neutralized. (Or should I say "neutralised"?)

How is 'American English' more 'neutral' than 'UK English'? If anything its surely the other way round as UK English is the 'original' and has been around alot longer. It's a bit scarey if the implication, as I'm currently reading this, is that US cultural hegemony is now considered to be taken for granted as 'neutral'.
And surely this is not one of the reasons that this article has been declared totally out of bounds to all but one priviledged sysop?? If so Wikipedia is indeed on a very slippery slope downwards.
quercus robur 09:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that it was a an unjustified bash of the Limeys. However, the article should be consistent in it's use of language. Either UK English or American English. Freecycle originated in the US so maybe that's what should be used. Note: this is an unsigned comment

Yeah - there is some guideline (don't have time to dig up a wikilink) which says that where the subject of an article has a particular connection to either the US or the UK, it should be in that country's 'version' of English. Cynical 16:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hardly a reason to justify setting this article as out of bounds to all but one wiki-editor for almost two weeks, with no sign of a resolution or accountability despite the fine words on the 'office' page that state otherwise. quercus robur 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
A policy of homogenic use of language would lock out a lot of editors. Mind you that a lot of users/contributers of en.wikipedia have another first (and perhaps second) language and would have a hard time distinguishing between UK English and American English. 194.255.112.30 07:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection request

{{editprotected}}

This article has been write-protected for over 2 and 1/2 weeks. When will the WP:OFFICE sanctions be lifted? Silensor 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. Probably best to think in terms of "eventualy" and "in time". I doubt it helps that the foundation is probably a bit busy right now.Geni 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the {{editprotected}} tag. If it's protected under WP:OFFICE it really should not be edited at all. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it say "If you are able to edit this page, please discuss all changes and additions on the talk page first"


[edit] Trademark - generic term & controversies

The following section has been removed by anonymous users within the last couple of weeks:

Critics point out that it could equally be protected from corporate abuse by establishment as a generic term. Ironically, Beal himself initially used freecycle as a generic term, and early documents make frequent references to 'freecyclers' and 'freecycling', terms which now trigger letters from the Freecycle trademark protection team.

This is extremely relevant to, and bears directly upon, the current lawsuit.

Further criticism has been attracted by the friends-and-family board structure, which prevents The Freecycle Network from full registration as a non-profit and efficient use of donations. Beal defends this as a necessary interim measure whilst the organization grows rapidly.

I do think this is also of relevance. We don't hide L Ron Hubbard's influence upon the Scientology movement, do we?

Finally I'm concerned that the external links to websites discussing the lawsuit have been removed. Was there any discussion about this? Most of the edits since the page was unprotected seem to be either anonymous or blatantly NPoV. I propose reverting them in a few days, should there be no discussion about this. --Stroller 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


I agree with the need to revert. I was surprised to see how much this article has shrunk since I last viewed it. Also there is a new Grist article which slams TFN for it's anti-free speech actions of late. It can be found at: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/26/111526/801

--Razmear 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


WTF? Is this a propaganda page to try and influence a lawsuit currently in litigation? I guess Colbert is right. Wikipedia is nothing but "wikiality," the reality that exists if you make something up and enough people agree with you. - Anonymous

editted controversies - to update to trademark section to clarify trademark dispute is US and that the Trademark is accepted and udisputed in the UK and the EU. - to update the "dissenters" section - making clear it was moderators who were dismissed - not members - and including some of TFN's stated reason for these actions. have done so carefully to try to be faithful to both sides in this dispute. It is important that this dispute is documented - but that the page is not seen as an attack against TFN Topmark 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo origin.

The following was found i the the controversies section:- Logo Origin. It has been recently discovered that the Freecycle logo[5] consists of clip art images [6] [7] that are copyrighted by Microsoft and are specifically prohibited from being used in a corporate logo or for commercial purposes [8]. This revelation will likely impact both the trademark approval process and the pending lawsuits.

I don't think this section under controversies should be allowed to remain in this article as is without further referencing.

"It has recently been discovered" - by whom? , by the author of this piece? (disallowed as publishing unreferenced results of original research - more journalistic than encyclopedic). If discovered by someone else this should be referenced. There is no reference to any comment by Microsoft (only a link to a standard license) about this alleged infringement of their copyright or by the Freeecycle organisation as to whether they actually used the clipart or had sought permission for use of the clipart The sentence beginning "This revelation is likely.." is simply opinion. Without prejudice to the truth of this section it appears to be based on unsupported hearsay and should not remain in a wikipedia aricle (if it is proven untrue, worse still it could be construed as libellous)

It could be that this is unreferenced "evidence" garnered for the lawsuits by one of the parties and published here for to support their case- and in that case it is definitely inappropriate to publish here I have deleted the section but would appreciate someone with more knowledge of things wikipedia (i am a bit of a newbie here) stepping in and giving some guidance on this issue that seems fraught with difficulties.

Or perhaps the orginal author can fix the section once it has been made a bit more watertight and in line with wikipedia guidelines? Forgive me if i get this wrong.Topmark 12:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


The discovery was made by several members of the group FCNext who looked thru thousands of images to locate the origin of the Guitar and Bicycle. The supporting evidence, being the link to the pictures used in the logo on Microsoft's website, and the EULA for those images were presented to back up the statement. The EULA specifically states the images can not be used for a corporate image, and therefore can not be turned into a trademarked image for the TFN logo. The statement "this revelation is likely..." is admittedly not in an encyclopedic context and should have been the only portion removed. --Razmear 00:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this section still remains innaccurate as it asserts that the logo's are copywrited by Microsoft. Microsoft does not in fact hold the copyright to these images, but rather distribute them under license. I have been unable yet to ascertain yet which third party holds the copywrite or whether they have any agreement with Freecycle. The Eula simply states "Microsoft licenses some of the artwork from third parties and therefore cannot grant permission for you to redistribute the artwork." Allegations made on web forums that are not yet proven cannot be regarded as encyclopaedic While reporting controversies and lawsuits on Wikipedia is appropriate - it surely can't be appropriate to use these pages to try to generarate a controversy? Given that neither Microsoft, the origininal Artists, nor the Freecycle Network have taken any reportable action on this issue - readers could easily conclude this to be the intention of this posting. It is simply POV of the author that this constitutes a "controvery" and Wikipedia ought not to be used as a campagn website or ideas forum. Given that the controversies section is still IMHO opinion rather bloated in relation to the overall length of the Freecycle article it is my opinion that this section should be removed until there is something more solid to report.Topmark 13:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact-checked the copyright. The company concerned is NVTech not Microsoft, and it appears that NVTech legal have begun to take action - I've seen good proof for the first statement but only have hearsay for the second. Much of the material on the logo copyright I removed a week or so ago, as much for the quality of the ranting as for the lack of proof. BTW, not to be picky but the word is "copyright".

Your claim this page "generates" controversy is IMHO itself PoV and pointless; can we stick to the facts and remove items because they are untrue or have insufficient proof. Likewise for the bizarre concept that there must be some sort of affirmative action for the up-side of Freecycle. The pros and cons should reflect the facts and not some quota system. The perceived lack of balance is due to unreporting of Freecycle successes, and curious that visitors with agendas have added or subtracted to controversies and not to the successes. I've recently added a separate section for successes as a start for that, and suggest improving it be a next item of work for this page. SagePose 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Regiving

Why is there mention of the term "regiving" in this article. There is no such word and it is not mentioned anywhere on freecycle.org (the main TFN website, at least as of 1/12/2006). It seems to be a new invention of some of the authors of this article and not something that actually exists or that TFN actually uses.Zebra6 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ii's abundantly clear why the term is used. Wikipedia cannot use the original term 'freecycling'. TFN themselves have stopped using the term, take action against anyone who does, and are also moving away from recycling. Perhaps a more sensible debate would be between regifting and regiving, neither of which are especially elegant constructions. SagePose 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)SagePose

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Freecycle_Network_4a1e.html"