Talk:Cory Doctorow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article contains biographical material about a person who is or has been a Wikipedia contributor. Wikipedia policies are in place to ensure that the subject of such material does not exert undue influence over its content. However, the nature of Wikipedia is such that, as with all its articles, misleading material may be present. Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

An individual covered in this article, Cory Doctorow, has edited Wikipedia as Doctorow (talk • contribs).

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: "Who owns your Wikipedia bio?", The Register, December, 2005.

Contents 1 Picture 1.1 Picture linking 2 Sales 3 To all the interested parties 3.1 More sales 4 Link 5 Wording 5.1 Eastern Standard Tribe success 6 Unreferenced 7 Large revert 8 References 9 With Regards to Cory's Editing of His Own Article 10 Cite web sucks 11 External links 12 Haircut 13 Criticsm section 14 Criticsm section

[edit] Picture

The picture is horrible. Any chance of a less supercilious looking one?

I don't know, supercilious seems appropriate.

I think this one is better: [1] (it is now 19-04-2005, Thijs)

The one you think is better is the one the original poster was complaining about (and it's about 4 years out of date) -- Cory

My contribution...

[edit] Picture linking

This is bxy, the Chinese translator of the page. I am updating the Chinese to catch up with the original one.

I don't know how to link the picture of Cory in the Chinese page here: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A7%91%E5%88%A9%C2%B7%E5%A4%9A%E5%85%8B%E6%89%98%E7%BD%97

[edit] Sales

Is there a reference for the disappointing book sales? If the sales figures were in fact poor, the wording in Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom should be changed, since it mentions the book being relatively successful. --Nikita Borisov 22:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There won't be a reference for the disappointing sales because the sales were not, in fact, disappointing. The book has outsold every first sf novel publishing in 2003 for which I have figures, sold double what my publisher expected it to sell, and is producing handsome royalties even today. I've replaced the photo with a recent publicity shot, too. --Cory Doctorow 20:05, 10 November 2004 (GMT)

Today saw yet another reversion to the speculative, negative comments about my book sales subsequent to Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. To the anonymous user at 80.58.23.235 -- I'm not sure what you're basing your speculation on, but let me assure you that you are factually incorrect. It seems that you *want* to believe that sales subsequent to Down and Out have been lacklustre or disappointing, but I have royalty checks that say otherwise. Eastern Standard Tribe has nearly sold out its hardcover run in approximately the same timeframe and Down and Out (+/- about two months), said run being larger than the Down and Out run. The paperback is due out shortly -- further indication that my publisher is well pleased with the sales of the hardcover. As to the short story collection, no one, for a second, expected that a short story collection from a specialty press would sell comparably to my novels, which were published by the largest science fiction publisher in the world. However, the book is performing well in the Four Walls Eight Windows catalog, winning major awards, and is headed for a third printing, barely a year after its initial publication.

If you'd like to discuss this further with me, I'd be happy to receive email from you: my address is doctorow@craphound.com. I wish, though, that you would stop presenting your speculation as fact here. I don't think that an encyclopedia is an appropriate forum for you to pursue a vendetta, nor to grind an axe about the appropriate mechanism for authors to market their works. --Cory Doctorow 07:31, 12 November 2004 (GMT)

I am forced to add that an encyclopedia is not the place for one to reflect on one's own accomplishments, nor is it a forum for the defending of ones honor in the face of criticism. There are mechanisms in place that would allow for a concerned subject to roll back edits that lacked merit, but this subject apparently created an account here solely to edit his own entry into the wikipedia. Irregular in the extreme, for even though he may well be a leading authority on himself, he is not objective, and cannot be expected comment without bias on himself.

It is a breach of trust, and if allowed, will be detrimental to wikipedia. 66.25.167.140 03:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with 66.25.167.140 - if mention of someones accomplishments is missing or misrepresents the facts this mention should be changed - no matter by whom. This is not irregular it is desirable. If you want to disagree the proposed facts would be an excellent starting point for work. Did books subsequent to some point in time sell better or worse than before? This seems more important than who finds out, no?

--Biehl 21:40, 12 January 2006 (GMT)

It may be that a person is incapable of being neutral on the subject of his own bio; nevertheless when it comes to factual questions (e.g., how well a book has sold), there should be no question of bias: either the book sold or it didn't.

I didn't create my Wikipedia account solely to edit my entry; like many Wikipedia editors, I created my Wikipedia account because I saw an entry I wanted to correct. There is every possibility that I will subsequently find other entries to edit (I've done some minor edits to other entries already). It's incorrect to say that my account was created solely to edit this entry; it was merely *initially* created to do so.

--Cory Doctorow 12:52, 12 January 2006 (GMT)

Why don't we just find the exact sales figures for Down and Out? Let the numbers speak for themselves? 128.233.153.54 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, somewhere in my agent's filing cabinet would be the most recent sales figures, but what would publishing them "speak"? How would knowing how many copies the book has sold in its six printings tell you whether Creative Commons sold books or cost sales? If the figure is "high," isn't it possible that they are driven by the book's quality (it won the Locus Award and was a Nebula finalist). If they're "low," couldn't that be for the same reason? What would "high" and "low" be? What's the "normal" sales-figure for a first novel by Cory Doctorow?

[User:doctorow]

[edit] To all the interested parties

I have done my best to reconcile all the conflicting versions floating around out there. The current activity seems to center around people people who want to use sales data to make a negative or affirmative case about ebooks and free media. Since these issues are inextricably linked to the way Doctorow has chosen to present his books to the world, I do think it is at least somewhat appropriate. However, what I disagree with is the manner.

For those who want to make the affirmative case, you are welcome to do so, provided you supply actual numbers instead of using relative terms such as print runs (how big were the print runs), comparisons to other authors (so what?), etc. Personally I find all such discussions a little distasteful whether in the positive or negative but if you want to make that case, you are more than welcome to, provided you stay objective and factual.

For those who want to make the negative case, again, numbers and statistics would be appreciated. The above admonitions apply but in the opposite direction. Remember, there is no scientific way to judge the impact of free distribution because all Doctorow's books were distributed that way. We can all agree that editorializing is not what this site is about.

To all parties, let's keep the language neutral. I don't know how many times I had to take the adjective "successful" and its variants away from sentences that would otherwise be innocuous. All of a sudden it seems that every sentence reads like "Cory Docotorow's first successful novel and his second successful novel were both science fiction books that happened to be very successful." These of course switch over to the other side in a couple of days. It's getting a little ridiculous.

Lastly, is it ethical for the subject of an encyclopedia entry to write about himself in the third person? I would say yes, provided he stick to facts instead of editorializing.

PS, the new picture is very dark. Can you lighten it up?

I'm fine with the current edit. I don't think that this entry needs to say anything about the relative merits of electronic books. I only ended up here when someone wrote to me to note that the entry had been revised in a way that presented what I'd done in a very negative light, making factually untrue assertions about my sales.

As to why the sales of my books as compared to the sales of other writers' books is relevant: it's not a control, but it is a control-like element for evaluating the impact of the Creative Commons licenses; if another book is published at the same time, with the same publicity push, to the same kind of audience, then its sales relative to the sales of mine are a relevant metric for evaluating the success of my program. Of course, all books are *sui generis* -- so disambiguating the success factors related to marketing to the success factors related to the book's literary merits is impossible in any event. As I say, I would be happy to have the entry simply note the experiment's existence without making any judgements about its success or failure.

I've made three minor edits to your last edit:

• Changed "private copyright owner" to "rightsholder." A "private" rightsholder is redundant in that nearly all rightsholder entities are private (in the US, the government can't hold a copyright), and where they are not (Crown copyright in the UK, say), I advocate the same reforms. As to "copyright owner" versus "rightsholder" -- for those of us who believe that copyright is a metphor for property and not property itself (which, in fact, is the official view of WIPO and the US Copyright Office and is so hardly a radical notion), "copyright owner" is an ideologically charged term. That's why WIPO and other entities use the more accurate "rightsholder." If, for example, my publisher were to sue someone for producing a bootleg edition of one of my books, they would do so as the "rightsholder" -- since they do not own the copyright in any sense, merely a limited license to some of the rights in copyright.

• Changed "non-creative" to "technological." "Non-creative" is unavoidable prejorative, as it implies a value judgement about the labors of those who made technological conversions to my work. In my view (and in theirs!), their work was indeed creative. "Technological" is a more accurate term to distinguish their work from the work of, say, those translating the book into Spanish.

• Clarified the reference to Amazon sales-rank. The previous draft implied that there was some negative conclusion to be drawn from a sales rank below 30,000, but this is, in fact, a typical (or slightly high) ranking for a midlist science fiction book a year after publication.

Thanks for your very reasonable redrafting of the article -- I very much appreciate it.

PS: I think the photo is great. --Doctorow 07:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More sales

I've cut the sentence about "correlation" -- I have no idea what kind of "correlation" you're seeking.

The first novel (the only book for which any publisher-generated sales figures exist; sales figures take > 18 months to reach an author) has been downloaded over 500,000 times from my site. It's also been downloaded an untold number of times from literally hundreds of mirrors around the Web. It's also been emailed to mailing lists with tens of thousands of readers. How would you construct a "correlation" between this unknowable number of downloads and the single, semi-annual sales number that my publisher delivers to me 12 months after the quarter closes? --Doctorow 5 January 05

[edit] Link

I removed the link to "derivative" (in "derivative works"), since that points to the calculus term, which has nothing whatever to do with derivative works. --Erik 2004 Nov 15

[edit] Wording

What is the difference between "edited by" and "rewritten and edited by," apart from the latter sounding more sinister?

I don't support giving the public more "rights" to works in copyright. Exceptions to copyright as embodied in first sale, fair use or fair dealing, etc, are not, for the most part, affirmative rights. Rather, they are freedoms that are available to the public.

Works are not "put" into the public domain in that there is no action required for a work to enter the public domain, no registry to update, etc. Rather, they "pass" into the public domain as a natural consequence of aging. Like "author's monopoly" and other terms that you edited, this is a term-of-art used by copyright lawyers and scholars regardless of where they stand on copyright law.

"Creator's Monopoly" isn't a "biased term" -- it's the term used by copyright lawyers, WIPO and IP experts to describe copyright, since the first copyright statutes. (see, for example, WIPO's use of the term: http://www.isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/B3/B3_3.HTM -- WIPO is the UN body that formulates the international copyright treaties whence all most copyright laws spring and can hardly be considered "anti-copyright." Regarding "comparable writers," I've included a reference to two writers whose first novels were published around the same time as mine.

I believe it was you who included the Amazon sales rank data, and I think it should go. For starters, Amazon sales ranks change: right now, the paperback of Down and Out is ranked 15,000. Tomorrow it might be higher, or lower.

Secondly, the sales-ranks are calculated according to a secret formula, and Amazon provides no key for converting sales-rank into volume sold.

Finally, sales-rank tells you nothing more about the commerical impact of Creative Commons licensing. Stipulate that the sales rank is low (it isn't, when compared to my colleagues' year+ old books) -- is that because the CC license cannibalized sales, or because the book isn't very good? Or stipulate that it's high (it is, when compared, etc): is that due to CC distribution driving sales, or because the book is very good?

It really seems to me that you're out to "prove" that CC licensing doesn't work. This isn't a provable position; I have never claimed that CC licensing absolutely sold books, but rather that my publisher and I have been commercially satisfied with the performance of my books, and that I *beleive* that CC licensing contributed to that. I would be very happy with a Wikipedia entry that said no more than that.

But the veiled slams in the form of snarkily worded references to Amazon sales rank and snide notes about "non-creative" works are axe-grinding, not factual presentations. --Doctorow 6 January 05

"Frankly it's a little discomforting to have the subject write about himself."

I don't see why not -- it's abundantly clear that I have more domain expertise on things like "Cory Doctorow's views on copyright" and "the commercial fortunes of Cory Doctorow's books" than you do.

"Edited and rewritten" is redundant -- they mean the same thing here.

The Amazon sales-rank example (which I believe you inserted to begin with) is nonsensical and proves nothing. I've cut it. --Doctorow 6 January 05

I have removed the note about Mr. Doctorow having edited this article, as it violates a policy (Wikipedia:Avoid self references) and is not necessary -- the whole principle of Wikipedia is that it does not matter who is contributing, as long as there are enough contributors to move towards quality and NPOV. In other words, if Mr. Doctorow's work on this article has made it biased in some way, there are ways to deal with that, and they would be the same no matter who wrote it. note: I have not read this article and have no opinion on its specific content, I just stumbled across the disclaimer about Doctorow's editing on recentchanges. --Tuf-Kat 23:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tuf-Kat. Very good point. I believe that the article as it stands now does a good job of neutrally presenting the facts regarding my books (though I think that all this stuff about whether or not copyleft increases sales is misplaced here; surely that should go in an entry about copyleft itself). --Doctorow 7 January 05

[edit] Eastern Standard Tribe success

"His second novel, Eastern Standard Tribe, was warmly received by his fans and has been incorporated into university curriculum and some business's mobile strategies." What's the citation for this? What curriculum or curriculums? What businesses? I did find a claim[2] that Down and Out has been integrated into coursework, though that page no longer contains the quote Doctorow claims it does (in the absence of a reliable archive, we have only Doctorow's word on this).

Point being, vague claims about integration into business strategies or university courses are unencyclopedic without some sort of reference. Without justification, I believe this text should be removed.

[edit] Unreferenced

The {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} tag has been removed, if there are specific issues with factual information present in the article please list the problems on the talk page. A blanket declaration like that isn't helpful in verifying information. Thanks :D - cohesion★talk 01:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What the heck happened to the References section that used to be in this article? There was a bunch of references for this article, and it seems as if some academically dishonest individual decided to remove them for some odd reason. -- LGagnon 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've just compared an old version with this one. Several facts were deleted from the article with the explaination of "fixing a typo". [3] A lot of info was deleted unjustly, and probably should be added back in, especailly since there were references for some of that info. -- LGagnon 03:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

yikes, ok, I will look at that when I have time probably later tonight, unless someone beats me to it :D - cohesion★talk 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large revert

User:Havardk altered a large portion of this article with the edit description claiming to have fixed a typo [4] This was not the case and a lot of useful information was lost. I went though the subsequent edits and included the changes that I could, other changes were obsoleted by the reversion. - cohesion★talk 09:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

The edit to the references to add number [5] did not reorder them, I didn't change them to order of appearance. I was trying to settle on a reference style WP:CITE since right now it is an amalgamation of them. The style guide says footnotes should be numbered, and these are footnotes, so I was just doing that. There seem to be a good amount of style choices in references but I would prefer we pick one, I don't really have any personal preference at all :). - cohesion★talk 19:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, you changed the order back, sorry I didn't notice. I went back and added numbers but they are still in the same order, so I guess the numbering/not numbering isn't what you cared about at all, hehe, oh well :D - cohesion★talk 19:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] With Regards to Cory's Editing of His Own Article

For the record, Wikipedia guidelines (but not official policy) on editing your own article:

It is difficult to write neutrally about oneself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself. Of course, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, sexual orientation, criminal involvement or lack thereof, current employer, place of birth, work done in foreign countries, etc. However, be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it.

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be a secondary or tertiary source. This means that Wikipedia should not contain any "new" information or theories (see Wikipedia:No original research) and all information should have checkable third-party references. Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable.

Wikipedia does not wish to have an inaccurate article about you. Our Neutral point of view policy means that we aim to have a balanced and fair article. Our goal is not to offer opinions of our own, but only to accurately reproduce those of others, which should be sourced and cited. You can help by pointing us to sources which can enable a more balanced view to be presented.

If you don't like the photo, you can help Wikipedia by contributing a good photo under a suitable free content license.

It would probably be a good idea to identify yourself on the article's talk page with the {{Notable Wikipedian}} notice.

Please note that this does not mean you can't revert Wikipedia:Vandalism on your page; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism, and not just a content dispute.

And later:

Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged.

— WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 18:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note: ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned. Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. Contribute on the talk page instead. Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself.

It will be good also, if references can be found from third parties, rather than from Mr. Doctorow's blogs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cory's editing hasn't been particularly egregious, he has worked towards consensus on this talk page, and the disclaimer you mentioned is already included. The addition of two negative external links simultaneous with this warning is a little suspect, I have removed one link because it appears to be a blog entry about the subject on a blog that otherwise isn't devoted to Cory Doctorow. An individual blog entry isn't notable in this context. The other link has been removed also because, from my understanding, it is comprised entirely or original unverified research related to a theoretical "Cory Sucks Index" or CSI. See Wikipedia:External links for information about what should be included in this section. If there was a significant view against the article's subject the appropriate thing to do would be add an entire section about the opposition and include references and/or links in the external links section. The links shouldn't express an opinion independent of the article content. - cohesion^t 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on external links moved to separate section.

[edit] Cite web sucks

Sorry, but that template is useless. There absolutely no reason why we should be removing information from references which can be cited through the MLA style. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have a template to guide those who don't understand how to write a citation, but these templates are so restrictive that they end up decreasing the usefulness of the citation because they aren't designed to handle both websites that aren't articles and articles on the web. -- LGagnon 23:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem is using a different style for citing web resources, but it needs to include the URL, the title of the page, the date of publishing (if available) and the date of retrieval. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

[...] The addition of two negative external links simultaneous with this warning is a little suspect, I have removed one link because it appears to be a blog entry about the subject on a blog that otherwise isn't devoted to Cory Doctorow. An individual blog entry isn't notable in this context. The other link has been removed also because, from my understanding, it is comprised entirely or original unverified research related to a theoretical "Cory Sucks Index" or CSI. See Wikipedia:External links for information about what should be included in this section. If there was a significant view against the article's subject the appropriate thing to do would be add an entire section about the opposition and include references and/or links in the external links section. The links shouldn't express an opinion independent of the article content. - cohesion^t 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the links. It's absolutely assinine to have a fan site but specifically remove critical remarks, and makes for an incredibly POV external links section. If "the links shouldn't express an opinion independent of the article content," then remove those sites also expressing a positive opinion of Doctorow, as well. Don't have the positive and not the negative. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Little clean-up on talk for clarity. Just wanted to clarify a few things on my position. The external links policy seems to specifically encourage, in the presence of a Doctorow "fan" site, to include a site or more critical of Doctorow. It explicitly says: "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." Note it also says, "One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." Done. It also says that a site with "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" is excluded UNLESS "it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view." I have no problem with the removal of these links IF the fan site is also removed from the external links. The point is, this is supposed to be an objective article on Cory Doctorow. Let's have the external links match the article's tone. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the fan site link actually, but I just removed it, it was not even a working website anymore. Anyway, I don't have a problem with anti-cory links, I just am not sure that there is significant justification for them. Is there an anti-Cory Doctorow movement? There might be, but if there is it should be in the article also, not just in the links section. I don't really think the one blog entry link is very worthwhile regardless, but I'm willing to wait for more consensus. - cohesion^t 05:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly say there is an anti-cory movement. There does appear however to be people critical of him. Nothing surprising there it happens to everyone in the public eye. I've included this in the article as per your suggestion. I've also linked to the 'Cory Sucks Index' from within the article. Whether or not the external link should remain I have no opinion. --Teknorat 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haircut

I've got no idea why the stuff about the haircut is in there, but at least it should be accurate. No one calls a flat-top haircut "The Magic Kingdom." I carry the photos on long trips of several weeks or more when I'm likely to need a haircut, not on trips when my "regular barber isn't present." My barber isn't present on any of my trips, period.

== Doctorow

I've removed the information. I don't see how it has any value in an encyclopedia article. Cheers! jaco♫plane 07:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And I've re-removed it... like you, I don't see what value it has. I've also just junked the criticism and parodies section. Including criticism is certainly valid, but IMO, it has to have some kind of authority behind it. I also have a long-standing dislike for "Criticism" sections... they just encourage people to add junk to the article, instead of properly sourcing criticism, writing it up and then building it into the article itself... as opposed to finding a link and adding one line to a "Criticism" section that slowly fills up with every gripe and junk site that trolls can dig up. - Motor (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticsm section

The criticsm section has been added back in. I do not see why it is acceptable to have references where a person is praised yet unacceptable to have any criticism. Cory is clearly someone who is criticised to the point where someone has created a mathematical algorithm to rank how much his different posts on Boing Boing "suck". People don't like him and criticise accordingly; I am not saying I agree with any of their points but any attempt to hide that criticism is just wrong. It's the truth, plain and simple.--Gerardm 11:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Assertions that "it is the truth" mean nothing. If you have a problem with other claims made in the article, consider removing them too... *if* they are not backed up by reliable sources. Your argument does not justify including more unreliable information. Cory is clearly someone who is criticised to the point where someone has created a mathematical algorithm to rank how much his different posts on Boing Boing "suck" utterly farcical. Frankly, I'd be ashamed to have posted something like that in public... but hey, your standards are obviously lower than mine, or Wikipedia's. - Motor (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, get off your high horse. I'd be ashamed to be someone who clearly wants to hide the truth. People criticise Doctorow. That really is a plain and simple fact. Your standards clearly are that you want to hide criticism. Maybe a career in politics awaits? Back in it goes. --Gerardm 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This currently being discussed on Talk:Xeni Jardin#Criticism section removal -- anyone is welcome to contribute. I have made it quite clear what the requirements for sources on Wikipedia are -- Wikipedia is particularly sensitive to these when it comes to bios. No-one is suggesting that information be hidden -- just properly and reliably sourced. If you can't do that, then it does't belong in an encyclopaedia. For anyone interested, recent additions to my talk page should also give some insights into the approach taken by certain editors to Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making up rules as you go, Motor. The guy's a blogger, people have criticised him on blogs. The cites are good, and not controversial. - 63.107.91.99 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

He is a blogger, published author and journalist. Were he just a blogger I would probably submit this article for deletion myself. I have provided the links documenting the wikipedia guidelines regarding the use of sources. You are free to include any criticism you like, *providing* you cite reliable sources for it. You are also free to submit this article for deletion if you consider it not-notable. You are not free to include any old nonsense that is backed up by nothing more than a link to a blog -- that's Wikipedia in a nutshell. - Motor (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a distinction here that you seem to be losing, Motor. Sure, a blog isn't a place to find a citation of some external fact. You keep citing the rules for using blogs as secondary sources. None of the citations are using the blogs as secondary sources, but rather as a primary source, which is fine. But, I certainly have to agree, if someone links to a blog which is a secondary source of criticism of Cory, that's not a good cite. Let's keep the links to actual criticism, in order to remain within the citation policy. - 63.107.91.99 16:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I quoted the guideline with regard to both primary and secondary sources. I suggest re-reading them. Starting a blog criticising person X, and then linking to it on person X's Wikipedia article as if it was a reliable source (primary or secondary) is a nonsense -- even if you want to just claim that "person X is criticised for". - Motor (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but why was the criticisms section removed in the first place? When I added it I ensured that it adhered to the guidelines. There was one source that probably didn't need to be there but beyond that why was it removed? Unless someone can provide a reasonable argument as to why there should not be a criticisms section I will simply add it again along with some extra sources.--Teknorat 04:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticsm section

I think that this article reads like something written my Cory himself, not like an encyclopedia article. I think the criticism section should be included; my first thought upon reading this article is that there is no mention of the fact that many people disagree strongly with/criticize Cory's writing. If there are this many people who feel it's important than it seems absurd to try and claim this is inappropriate.

Also, I think Cory edits his own page too much, well beyond the point of "correcting errors" or whatever. That's probably why this page reads like the sycophantic praise-fest that it is.

Marshaul 10:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like POV pushing to me. Have you tried looking at the article's history and counting the actual edits, or seeing if they were enough to push his own POV onto Wikipedia? I have, and I have to disagree with everything you've said. --Kjoonlee 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a criticism section would make sense, but only if there were actually notable/reliable source to cite, like someone quoted in a New York Times article as criticizing him. Quoting a random blog comment criticizing him is no better than quoting me posting a criticism on a Wikipedia talk page---obviously not encyclopedic. --Delirium 08:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the blog was not a good source. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)