Talk:Craigslist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Ownership

Who own's Craiglist? Craig? The article doesn't say. Sylvain1972 20:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] craigslist or Craigslist? (naming)

Is it craigslist or Craigslist? The article has multiple uses of each, which is correct? I'll go ahead and change everything to uppercase. If this is incorrect then please add the article to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) by using the boilerplate Template:Wrongtitle. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Wrongtitle for more examples of articles with lowercase titles and how they are dealt with. Cacophony 22:52, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

After browsing the pages at craigslist.org/about/, it appears that the site is consistently called craigslist but the new non-profit is called Craigslist Foundation. I'm going to change it back to craigslist here, and add the wrongtitle template. I know that some people have a big problem with starting sentences with a lowercase letter; I think that in the case of nouns which are explicitly lowercase it is acceptable. I also think it would also be reasonable to capitalize the word at the beginning of sentences, to be syntactically correct English, but I think the word should remain lowercase at the beginning of the first sentence at the least.
Other articles I've edited with the exact same issue include del.icio.us, qmail, and djbdns. ~leif ☺ HELO 00:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "wrong title" template should be removed. Grammatically, even something that is not normally capitalized is capitalized when it begins a sentence, paragraph or article. Thus, "craigslist" should be rendered "Craigslist" at the top of the article and whenever it begins a sentence.

Agreed. I have capitalized instances at the beginning of sentences. It's a basic rule of written English: all sentences must begin with a capital letter. Nohat 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Per the newly-agreed guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), I have capitalized all instances of Craigslist. Nohat 09:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of organization running craigslist

The article is rather confusing and unclear. It talks about being incorporated and eBay buying a stake, but also discusses Craigslist Foundation as a non-profit. Does this foundation really have anything to do with craigslist, other than having some of the same people involved? Its website discusses helping "emerging nonprofit organizations" pretty generically, and doesn't indicate that the foundation actually helps fund or operate craigslist itself. However, someone could certainly walk away with that impression from this article. --Michael Snow 01:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] why remove erotic services?

reverting the edit where someone removed "erotic services" on the list of ads that craigslist supplies until someone can give me a good reason not to have it. i'd say this is one of the more well known and infamous things that craigslist provides.

[edit] Craigslist has been offline all day today (Feb. 11, 2006)

Is there a reason why????.

[edit] Ads beamed into space?

In July 2005, Craigslist beamed over 2 million classified ads into deep space (one light year) in the near future, Er, so were the messages beamed in July 2005 or not? Perhaps July 2005 is just when Craiglist won the rights, or announced their intentions to beam ads into space. This should be clarified, and if they didn't beam them into space until later, that date should be given.

[edit] Removal of a section

I don't believe Craigslist would want to advertise that a bunch of their userbase got pranked, and the links seem to check out. Plus, the guy said he got interviewed by the New York Times, so we'll have to see how that turns out. I don't want some lame-@## edit war to start, so I thought it'd be good to bring it up in the talk page first.--198.82.92.132 17:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This isn't a hoax, I know that for sure, because I know about it second-hand. There's sources out there, I think I have them somewhere. WIll be back soon. 66.231.130.102 17:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't you know? You're not allowed to mention Encyclopedia Dramatica on Wikipedia. It has several embarrassing pictures of Wikipedia admins <removed link to attack site> and as retribution, they won't let the article exist without meeting higher standards than John Seigenthaler's page. Even mentions of it in other pages aren't permitted, it goes against the Wikipedia hive-mind. Until this latest notable piece of internet drama turns up on the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post (because anything on the internet is obviously "not verifiable", it has to be in a print newspaper or it's not good enough), Encyclopedia Dramatica is going to get the wilfully-ignorant "not notable" from the people who hate it. 195.173.23.111 08:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Something tells me Wikipedia would relish the note, given all the negative publicity. Also, added the specific Washington statute Fortuny willingly violated. Of note: the NYT article is reportedly coming tomorrow as per waxy.org's investigation. This definitely deserves to stay in the CL section, as it is a clear compromising of an entire section of their system, with or without direct links to ED.
    • Your legal interpretation is not really enough. Let any legal goings-on work their way out first. 66.231.130.102 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dead lnks

I've removed the former links 8 & 9, to stories of the controversy with Live 8. They seem to be dead. DGG 06:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities section in article

Does the section List of cities serve any purpose? An up-to-date version is always available at the official web site. Besides, this seems to be contrary to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I propose the section be removed, and information about the first ten cities be rolled into the background and/or significant events sections. — EncMstr 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As no one objected, I've made the section significantly more maintainable and useful. — EncMstr 10:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea. It was a good idea when there were fewer cities, but now it is quite unnecessary to duplicate that information here, and that kind of list is hard to maintain. -- Renesis (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I edited the area about cities included. The first 14 seemed more interesting than 10. The list on CL is not up to date and is out of sync with another list somewhere on the site. Also they are not always "cities": 20% are countries, regions or towns. I'm adding a link to a google map of Craigslist cities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.143.87 (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] proper etiquette

I'd like to edit this page, and "Craig Newmark", for accuracy, and maybe the addition of other good external links. I've been asking in a few places as to the proper etiquette, and do appreciate feedback. thanks!

Craig (craig@craigslist.org)Cnewmark 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:COI. In similar cases, it has been vehemently agreed best practice is that you don't directly edit either article. You're most welcome, however, to suggest changes on the corresponding talk pages and see what the community thinks. In your case, I'd be happy to incorporate any changes for which I can find a reliable published source, or remove material for which I can't find something you point out is in error. —EncMstr 04:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article errors

maybe some corrections:

  • "Craig solicted business cards from everyone he would meet." is not true
  • "The initial technology used did not work very well so Craig suspended postings while looking for better technology." also not true, it's just that the Pine cc field filled up
  • before the SPARC, Paul Risenhoover contributed server space on a Linux system
  • I created the user interface myself, though a volunteer, Weezy Muth, made significant contributions
  • in late 1999, Craig rewrote the software, using Perl and MySQL running in an Apache and Linux environment
  • "So Craig looked around for people who could help him run the business aspects of Craigslist. This resulted in Craig hiring a business advisor and a business manager."not true
  • "it will ban users who are critical of the owners" is false

... more to come, thanks!... Cnewmark 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


I removed the items for which googling didn't turn up any claim the other way:
  • removed: Craig solicted business cards from everyone he would meet.
  • removed: The initial technology used did not work very well so Craig suspended postings while looking for better technology.
  • removed: So Craig looked around for people who could help him run the business aspects of Craigslist. This resulted in Craig hiring a business advisor and a business manager.
  • removed: it will ban users who are critical of the owners
I goggled for ten to fifteen minutes on each of these items, but couldn't find any useful sources:
  • Pine cc field filled up
  • I created the user interface myself, though a volunteer, Weezy Muth, made significant contributions
  • in late 1999, Craig rewrote the software, using Perl and MySQL running in an Apache and Linux environment
If you can provide a link to a reliable source asserting each of these, I'd be happy to add them.
Wasn't sure if this was a complete fact, so didn't check it:
  • before the SPARC, Paul Risenhoover contributed server space on a Linux system
—EncMstr 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, regarding the last six items, I'm the guy behind all this, and am confused as to the current results. If it's a matter of authentication, how do I fix that? If it's expeditious, I can get help from Jimmy. thanks! Craig craig@craigslist.org Cnewmark 03:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is dig up a URL containing credible assertion of each item.
The Pine cc field filled up assertion, unless it was publicized somehow, seems the hardest of these. User:Jimbo Wales won't be of much use, at least not more than any other editor who can find reliable published facts. I'm usually pretty good at steering Google, but was confounded by some of these.
The basic principles of Wikipedia—which may be confusing to newcomers—is articles may contain only verifiable content. Just because it is "true" does not mean it can be included. We expect and hope the verifiable subset of facts is an agreeable truth. —EncMstr 04:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, my blog is listed as the founder's blog, authenticated, so should I just assert the facts there?

not complaining, just figuring it out. thanks!

Craig

Cnewmark 11:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Each external link may serve a different purpose. Often they are just for further subject exploration, as yours is. Other links could be for competitors, commentators, news, popular media—or cultural—uses of the article subject, etc. For examples, see Geneva#External links, Drywall#External links, Enron#External links and Holocaust denial#External links.
Blogs are poor reliable sources as no one checks their content before publishing, typically. In this (wikipedia) article, your blog is listed as an official site, meaning that it should be treated as biased toward the article subject. For a relatively uncontroversial subject such as Craigslist, there isn't likely to be "other points of view" URLs. For comparison, look at a hotly contested article like AIDS reappraisal: the external links are grouped by side. Also the edit history and talk pages are boisterous, to say the least.
If there were a published investigative article by Carl Bernstein called Craigslist Undermines the Fabric of the Universe (for example), it should—and probably would—be among the other links. More likely, the assertions would be in a controversy section of the article with Bernstein cited.
Did I elucidate or obfuscate? —EncMstr 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks! appreciated... but how do I solve this?

fyi... this will probably get into the news, some interest today at big media event. this is a real interesting problem.

Cnewmark 01:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(I've asked for volunteers to chime in here.) —EncMstr 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

EncMstr said:

>>:I goggled for ten to fifteen minutes on each of these items, but couldn't find any useful sources:

  • Pine cc field filled up
  • I created the user interface myself, though a volunteer, Weezy Muth, made significant contributions
  • in late 1999, Craig rewrote the software, using Perl and MySQL running in an Apache and Linux environment
If you can provide a link to a reliable source asserting each of these, I'd be happy to add them.<<

THIS VERY PAGE is the reference for those items, EncMstr ^__^

——Lumarine

Lumarine, thanks! That's what I'd think. I'm not pushing on this, it's a big issue for everyone.Cnewmark 17:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm jumping into this conversation a little late but...Actually, (referring to the last two posts), Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself and so these still need verifiable reliable sources. So we're back to square one. If any of the unreferenced statements above have been mentioned in the press somewhere, then all we need to do is link to it and we're done. I'm thinking that since Craig has probably done countless interviews about his company, he must have mentioned the above facts somewhere other than on this page? Katr67 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't Craig issue a press release stating these facts somewhere on craigslist.org? Would that be sufficient for facts if we were referring to them in regards to the company. Basically an official statement by the company. Strawberry Island 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/a/Talk%7ECraigslist_6bd8.html"