Talk:Dave Winer/Archived debates 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The Controversial "Relationship to Public" or "Criticism" Section Discussion

October/November 2005 dispute resolved with material acceptable to all disputants

I added a section of criticism, I don't have a personal problem with Dave Winer but it is undoubtable that many people have a problem with him and that is relevant to people who would come here to learn about him. I put a "disputed" tag at the top of the section to try to be as fair as possible but just as Iraq Criticism's are relevant to the George Bush entry widely held criticism's of Dave are relevant to this entry.

Betsy you shouldn't be anywhere near this entry, being a personal friend of someone is an automatic violation of POV. White washing the article to help a friend is so against the spirit behind Wikipedia it isn't even funny.'

JSNell, to be honest, I don't think you should be here either (if you've had personal interaction with someone you can't really be objective), that said, many proponents of RSS 1.whatever could be considered "collaborators" and there are whole newsgroups that document that dispute. --[[User:71.108.206.31 Oct 25 2005]

Ben User 71.108.206.31, I'm not aware of a Wikipedia policy forbidding Wikipedians to correct, improve, etc. the articles about people they know and like. Could you please link to it so that I can read it? betsythedevine 17:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
This is me (though I come to you from a friends IP address), User:71.108.206.31, a few things Betsy
First, here's your link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Since Dave Winer is your friend, you aren't neutral about him, since Wikipedia requires you to be so (see link above) you shouldn't be deleting things.
Now, please note, honestly you shouldn't even be adding but I'm not personally criticizing you for that, but when you purposely delete accurate items because you feel they were derogatory, you've crossed a line.
I honestly don’t give a damn about Dave Winer, but you do harm to the idea behind Wikipedia when you do that. Deleting pertinent information is the equivalent of evil regimes of the past burning books to prevent their populations from knowing things they disagreed with. Just because you like him doesn’t mean everyone has to or that the opinions of those who don’t should be erased.
Finally, I’m not this Ben guy. My IP address is right there you can put it into any reverse lookup engine and see that I’m coming from a completely different part of the country.
I don't expect you to understand any of this since you clearly lack any real integrity but I thought that, rather than be rude right out of the gate (like you came out being) I'd at least address your points...
- User:71.108.206.31
WP:NPOV requires that people write NPOV prose that represents both sides of any contested question. It doesn't say that people must feel neutral about subjects they edit. I am confident that others will improve or delete the unbalanced and unencyclopedic material you have added to Dave Winer. Your contention that I delete accurate material *because* I feel it is derogatory is mistaken. I deleted someone's anecdote claiming that Dave Winer gave a "F*ck Apple" speech. No source or verification was offered (WP:NOR) and the incident as described sounded non-notable. I stand by my own integrity by putting my own name on all my edits. You might also want to review WP:WQT betsythedevine 02:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'll make you a deal, leave the criticism section as it is (which thus far you have done) and you consider yourself apologized to. My issue was that you essentially deleted that content before and thought that "archiving it on the talk page" was sufficient - User:71.108.206.31
though, and it's probably considered one last dig and I apologize for not being able to resist, but given how you've conducted yourself below I hardly think you're the one to quote the WP:WQT
I understand your reluctance to remove material you consider accurate. The remedy is to give encyclopedia-quality sources for each statement (WP:NOR), and to add balance by representing different points of view (WP:NPOV). I'll leave it to you, or to other Wikipedians, to edit your criticism section. Revert fights and personal crosstalk aren't good uses of Wikipedia bandwidth. betsythedevine 12:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This is what BetsyTheDevine first got me on. But then went I went to get quotes she started attacking me for posting them to this page, then she said that I was the only one who cared and that I should just give up trying to include the section. Anyways, all the quotes and more are below. To support the fact that he is difficult to work with I would use the Tim O'Reilly quote that I've already put into the section. In regards to the trail of people Dave has left behind you can quote Tim Bray from the CNET article I list below: 'I observe that there are many people and organizations who seem unable to maintain a good working relationship with Dave.'. Dave mentioned that he is "widely hailed as the 'Father of RSS'" on this page link. (Also note that BetsyTheDevine has two requests to the third opinion page, one about my listing of the quotes on this page and another about the new section you added not including having authorative quotes.) --Ben Houston 15:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Ben, I made a good faith effort to create a compromise solution to a dispute going back to 2004. I thought that putting the disputed material (which violated WP:NOR much more than it did WP:NPOV ) into the Talk page would satisfy both sides. I was mistaken--it's not a good compromise if people of good faith don't agree to it. I'm willing to accept that you and this new anonymous person in California are acting in what you perceive are the best interests of Wikipedia. I wish you could accept that so am I. So was I. Yet you have both been quite happy to accuse me of bad faith, censorship, violating the spirit of Wikipedia, etc. It is true that I'm a friend of Dave Winer--but you are wrong to infer that I try to censor Dave Winer --look at the page history: I have not done that. But look at this page history and it's full of personal attacks on my integrity and actions by both of you. And you consider it "attacking" you that I asked you to remove quotes from un-encyclopedic sources, for instance the Google search for "dave winer asshole"? I'm not trying to "get" you, I was hoping a third opinion from a neutral party could help resolve some of our differences. I'm stopping now, and I advise you to join me. betsythedevine 17:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I say we just let it go myself, we seem to have a compromise so really...why argue? The truth is, I'll always disagree with people editing the entries of personal friends and I suspect Betsy will always think it's ok, so what can you do? Agree to disagree, find a compromise, and move on.
That is, until some new random person stumbles in 6 months from now and thinks the whole thing should be changed... - User:71.108.206.31
Someone requested a third opinion on this issue. NPOV shouldn't prevent reporting of contemporary critique, but strict adherence to fairness and sympathetetic tone is essential. In its present state, the Criticism section includes many strong statements with no references, it solely focuses on Dave Winer's character instead of his ideas and proposals, and its breadth is disproportional to the rest of the article. In my opinion, the description of the criticism of Winer's character should limit to a single paragraph with one or two brief quotes, and also explain why those quotes should matter. An another paragraph with counter-criticism should follow. Winer is a polarizing figure: leaving out the dispute or attempting to synthetize a single viewpoint would misrepresent the issue.
There doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia consensus to enforce impartiality, except for potentially spammy contributions. Being a friend with a person shouldn't thus disqualify you from editing the article about him. However, other people are also within their rights being extra vigilant in regards to bias in such a situation.
To summarize, I think the current representation shows bias. Talk about Winer's character should be replaced with something briefer and better cited. In any case, facts about his contributions, proposals and views would probably make more interesting and useful article. Aapo Laitinen 23:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
In response to your comments I have rewritten the criticism section around two critical quotes from prominent individuals that reflect implicitly the two main criticisms of Dave -- his inability to maintain relationships with his peers and his unpredictable nature. --Ben Houston 00:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Ben, that was a good condensation. Now, quoting the third opinion, another paragraph with counter-criticism should follow. IMO, the other POV here is not "nobody ever criticizes Winer," but the kind of opinion represented in this talk section's quote collection by Doc Searls, Rogers Cadenhead, and the counter-criticism paragraph of the original "Dave's Relationship with the Public" section. betsythedevine 13:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Betsy, feel free to add what you want. I am following the same implicit rule you seem to be following. --Ben Houston 21:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Ben, I created a counter-criticism paragraph. Now, if you are satisfied with the balance here, I'll be happy that together we have achieved the desired WP:NPOV on this difficult section. betsythedevine 02:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I made the quote of Doc a bit more factually introduced -- in a way I wanted to declare his biases in the same manner that I disclosed those of Tim. Also, I found the second section to contain more sweeping statements (I removed one) than the more quote focused first section. BTW we need to come up with a new title for the section -- "Criticism" isn't appropriate since it is more a reflection of his "public perception" or "reputation" -- I'm searching for the appropriate term here... --Ben Houston 14:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The title used to be "Relationship to the Public." Feel free to re-change it if you have better ideas. I'm ok with some of your change but not with all of it. See what I restored. If you still object, let's collaborate to find something we both like. betsythedevine 18:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Footnote: Interestingly, the CNET article [1] quotes from a blogpost by Tim Bray [2], but omits some meaningful context. Here's what Bray posted; I've bolded the excerpt used here: "Dave Winer has done a tremendous amount of work on RSS and invented important parts of it and deserves a huge amount of credit for getting us as far as we have. However, just looking around, I observe that there are many people and organizations who seem unable to maintain a good working relationship with Dave. I regularly get pissed-off at Dave but I really truly do think he’s trying to Do The Right Thing; but there are many people out there who can't get past being pissed off." Do you think we should include that final sentence after the other part of Tim Bray's quote? betsythedevine 18:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Betsy, I'll keep playing this "game" as long as you are intent to. ;-) Tim Bray states a real observation that many people agree with -- that's why I quoted him. Anyways, I've added a few more authoritative quotes on the same subject - please pick the best ones to keep in that introductory criticism section. --Ben Houston 21:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Ben, I'm not playing troll-games. Trying not to suggest that you are, let's just say that your new addition violates the third opinion mandate here, creating one criticism paragraph whose length is appropriate to the relative importance of this topic to Dave's biography. Sorry you felt I was attacking your Tim Bray quote--I thought I was just clarifying its context. I'm going to revert back to where the section was, one edit ago, where I at least thought we had achieved consensus. betsythedevine 22:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No changes in two weeks? We have a consensus on a new "Relationship to the Public" much better than the (un-encyclopedic) one I archived on this Talk page, after observing that people have been taking it out and putting back in since 2004. The old section worked hard to achieve WP:NPOV, but the new one is better because it works from encyclopedia-quality sources rather than making un-referenced generalizations (WP:NOR). Just for the record, since I have been accused of wanting to censor this material, hide it from readers, or prolong the battle about its inclusion forever, I am pleased and grateful that Aapo Laitinen's Third Opinion helped us to reach closure in a way that improves this article. betsythedevine 21:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the attribution of my quote - I did *not* say that to the CNet reporter, the reporter quoted my blog verbatim (fair enough). I also thought that my quote would be more helpful and accurate in illustrating the context of this issue if provided in whole rather than in part, so I did that. Oops, forgot to sign Tim Bray 06:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Section disputed in 2004

Hi. In this edit [3] a significant amount of text on Dave Winer's relationship to the public has been taken out without comment. Is there a good explanation for that move? --Tim Pritlove 23:55, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I feel that taking it out is more POV than leaving it in; i've restored it. --Random|832 05:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Section Disputed in August 2005

Somebody else removed the "relationship to the public" bit, again, categorizing it at "editorializing." On reflection, I agree that the section is non-encyclopedic. Nevertheless, it represents a substantial effort by wiki contributors to find common ground. So I'm going to post the deleted paragraphs here in discussion instead. I hope this will be an acceptable compromise solution. --betsythedevine 17 August 17 2005

"Relationship to the Public" material removed from article on August 17:

Winer's detractors allege that he is overly blunt and thin-skinned. Indeed, many of his later career successes are colored by a trail of former friends and collaborators who claim to have found him unpredictable and difficult to work with. The degree of anger and abuse some direct toward Winer continues to amaze those who respect his accomplishments. He is frequently parodied through websites such as Eye on Winer.

Winer's admirers see him as a leader of clarity and purpose. One of the attendees at BloggerCon II, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said "Winer is a constructive and innovative force in many overlapping worlds: blogging, journalism, software development, politics, business, and academia, among others. Without his intellectual and personal leadership, the Internet would look very different and have much less impact today."

This is one of those difficult tasks. As someone who has had some deeply negative personal run-ins with Dave, and knows other people who have as well, I feel that this description of Winer is fairly accurate. However, individuals feeling slighted hardly seems to make for encyclopedia material. If someone can make a compelling case, with specific examples, of Winer's quirky/abrasive personality and his "trail of former friends and collaborators," it seems like it could be relevant here -- but I've yet to see anyone do it. And I'm not sure it's worth it. Despite the dislike I've got for the man based on his behavior toward me and people I know, there is no denying that he has played an important role in the formation of blog culture and several Internet technologies... and I think that's true whether or not he's guilty of overstating his importance. Jsnell 00:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

A Long Exchange Between User:Bhouston and User:betsythedevine

(The following is a long discussion that occured while the major of the quotes in this talk page where collected and sorted through. I pulled it out into its own section so that people can more easily read it or ignore it.)

(Originally Posted on User_talk:Bhouston) I've edited this article before without removing this section, but when somebody else took it out, it seemed to me like a very substantial improvement. This section represents "original research" and personal opinion. The article Bill Gates handles controversy like this in a much more "encyclopedic" way. Would you agree that archiving this section in the article's Talk page, as I've done, would be a good compromise solution? betsythedevine 13:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • My issue is that I feel it is true. I have been following his scripting.com for quite some time and he does often use aggression or disengenious methods (although they start to become pretty transparent after a while) to get his way or for personal egocentric agrandisement at the expense of others or proper evolution of standards. I think it is important to note this since I notice it even though I am in no way related or have personal interest in the relevant technologies (i.e. RSS, XML-RPC, OMPL, etc.) Maybe in September (when I get a bit more time) I'll try to craft a properly referenced version. I noticed the New York Times has refered to him as both "irascible" and "cranky", I can include those references as well as a few others.
  • How would you suggest I handle this? IS the only option to leave it on the talk page as was done with the Bill Gates article? If omission is the only option it feels like some type of censoring. --Ben Houston 17:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, you hit the nail on the head of what would make this section "encyclopedic" when you talk about a properly referenced version. From NPOV: ".. an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without promoting a view. The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can....The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source."
    • That's what I was praising about the Bill Gates article -- its use of direct quotes from published or online sources. I suppose it is "some kind of censorship" to want to remove stuff that's unencyclopedic from a wikipedia article, but if we put the section into Talk:Dave_Winer then it's not lost.
    • Another possibility--we could ask some admins for an opinion via this page: [4]. betsythedevine 00:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Besy Devine is a close friend of Winer's as a Google search will attest. (posted by User: Bhouston September 29, 2005)

I am friends with Dave Winer, and with a lot of other people in the once-tiny blog-uniiverse. If you check out my User talk:Betsythedevine, you'll see something more relevant, however. I got involved in the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert article, trying to keep that entry NPOV--not because I know Jeff Gannon or agree with his politics (I don't!), but because I value Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I got pinged about my edit in Religion--I removed a sentence that said something like "Many sources have shown that Jews are more intelligent than other white people." I felt that such a controversial statement should have some actual source cited--without one, the statement is very un-encyclopedic. To the extent that I've been in any Wikipedia controversies--very rarely!--it's because I try to make articles NPOV and "encyclopedic", that is, based on printed or online sources rather than assertion or "original research." betsythedevine 14:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
From a reply to email from User: Bhouston betsythedevine 06:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ben--For someone who "doesn't have that much time to deal with this" you are certainly devoting a lot of time to gathering material that ranges from useful and appropriate source material (the NY Times piece) to cheap pop-psychologizing by people with no first-hand knowledge of the events and people they criticize.
For example, Tim O'Reilly (note the spelling) is a credible source to discuss his relationship with Dave--if you feel it's an important topic, I hope you plan to add whatever you come up with to Tim's article also--but random remarks about Dave's actions and motivations, blogged by third parties whose motivation and knowledge-level we the readers can't guess, are not appropriate encyclopedic source material...
The idea that worthless unsourced crap should be left in encyclopedia articles so that somebody else can "build on it" is not something I agree with. I removed an unsourced, un-encyclopedia remark for the exact reason that I stated. If someone had put into the article "Dave Winer's brilliant Bloggercon II has inspired other conference givers to imitate its unusual format", I would have removed it on exactly the same grounds. Yet I believe that statement to be true. With proper sourcing (and removing the value-laden, unencyclopedic word "brilliant") it could be added.
I don't see why you and I should fight over this at all. Let's just work on making the article encyclopedic and informative. But I'd appreciate it if you'd look over the huge amount of material you've assembled here and remove quotes that serve no value as encyclopedia sources (like Calacanis's) but just serve to create a giant mess of negativity.

Wow--The history of this page indicates that an entire new section of 287 words called "Credible Quotes on Winer" was created on September 28 in a series of 10 edits, all labeled "minor", all unsigned, and all made by User: Bhouston. I've retitled this section "BHouston's contributions to Dave Winer discussion." betsythedevine 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This section was created because of BetsyTheDevine's comments earlier to me that the section Dave Winer's relationship to the public needed to be more properly sourced. I have been finding authoritative quotes and adding them to this talk page incrementally -- I was not trying to sneak them in, also I did the work while properly logged in thus I wasn't trying to do it anonymously, and they were each and of themselves minor. I think that BetsyTheDevine needs to relax a little and accept that maybe I am following her advice and am slowing working towards creating a new rewrite of the section that was criticized for not being NPOV. If I was intent on being evil I like to think that I would be more competent about it -- I'm not an idiot. --Ben Houston 21:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ben--sorry, I didn't mean you were trying to be sneaky and failing. I meant that these additions should be read in the context of a major addition to this page, all made by one person in quite a short space of time. Your first four quote-sources are good--but your two Google searches and Calacanis's hearsay from two anonymous sources are very far from appropriate under a heading "Credible Quotes on Winer." IMO. betsythedevine 14:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay Betsy. Please remember that this is a talk page and not the article. I am going to continue to collect quotes some of which can eventually support a reworked criticism section that is more NPOV.
Okay, I don't think it is fair to leave all this criticism on this page indefinitely, it is unbalanced by itself. Although, now that the supporting material is collected, its time to write something more succint that captures the situation / issues. I am still not exactly sure the best way to present the issues that are apparent, suggestions are welcome. --Ben Houston 20:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Ben, I agree that leaving all this negative stuff as an undigested and unbalanced lump is unfair. I assume you have your own offline copy, but if you don't you can use Wikipedia's history feature to access your original collection. I am happy to leave here the quotes that might be considered authoritative sources for an encyclopedia article--published materials, for example, or first-person remarks by (for example) Tim O'Reilly.betsythedevine 16:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a talk page, not the article. You're quoting of the Cadenhead blog but removing the non-A-list blog sources show a double standard in terms of what is quotable. I've added back a bunch of the quotes. Once I get the time to expand the article or someone else does I don't think it is unnecessary to censor this page. I would prefer to error on including more information in the Dave Winer article that less. --Ben Houston 22:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Ben, being or not being an A-list blog source isn't the question here. Your justification for this quote collection was to gather source material about Dave Winer. But then you include stuff that isn't good source material. Good source material comes from 1) published, professional sources like the Wired article, or 2) personal statements including blog posts by people documenting their own interactions with Winer. Third-party hearsay, anonymous comments, value judgments by people whose knowledge and/or motivation we don't know--the material I removed all fell into those categories. betsythedevine 23:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Relevant Wikipedia policy: Verifiability#Dubious_sources "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable....anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources...Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website." betsythedevine 00:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Relevant Wikipedia policy: Neutral_point_of_view#A_vital_component:_good_research "Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later." betsythedevine 00:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
BetsyTheDevine: Let's give this quote fight thing a rest -- it's fairly tangential and its all on the unconsequential talk page anyhow. My main issue was that you kept removing the original criticism paragraph saying that it was not supported. I have now done a fair bit of research to establish that some of that criticism is supported and have found numerous high quality quotes that could be incorporated. To be honest, I do not relish writing a new criticism section since I fear getting your approval in addition to my lack of confidence of treating such a touchy subject appropriately. In many ways, it would be appropriate for you to rewrite the criticism section that you originally objected too to incorporate the research I did (and it is research that I did in response to your suggestion). I would really like to change the dynamic here from adverserial to cooperative. (NOTE: rewritten comment) --Ben Houston 02:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Ben, I too would like to change the dynamic. But your claim that I "kept removing the original criticism paragraph" isn't just adversarial, it's untrue. Look at the history of Dave Winer--two different users (not me) removed it on August 11 and 14. You reinserted it on August 14 and 18. After seeing on the discussion page that the same fight occurred in 2004, I tried for a compromise, by archiving the disputed material as "discussion." And, 2 months later, everyone but you seems content with that compromise. betsythedevine 22:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
You are ignoring the comments by Tim Pritlove and Jsnell on this page. You are also ignoring that that bit was in the article for some time through many different revisions. I also like how you created your own vanity page in Wikipedia but you lecture me on what the proper rules are around here. You are a dishonest individual who is intent on playing tricks rather than dealing with things in an open and honest fashion -- that's good to know. I'm done feeding the troll here, you've been wasting my time. --Ben Houston 22:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Tim Pritilove (who last commented in 2004) and Jsnell aren't relevant to your ongoing use of this page as a dumping ground for unencyclopedic "research." Neither they, nor any of the users who have edited Dave Winer since mid-August, have tried to reinsert "Relationship to the Public," which was continuously available for their use in this section. I did indeed, as a clueless wikipedia newbie without a username, create my own page, a clear violation (as I was later to learn) of wikipedia policy. The article Betsy Devine was, very understandably, nominated for vanity-deletion in May. To my pleased surprise, others voted to keep it. I am hurt by your accusations that I am dishonest and tricky--I'm not. And, I might add, WP:NPA Personal back-and-forth like this should go to email, but I don't want to leave your accusations here standing unanswered. What I really hope is that some sensible third party will intervene and remove all the junk here that isn't relevant to the article Dave Winer. betsythedevine 17:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Supporting Quotes

General Criticism

"Since my personality comes up every once in a while, I thought I'd comment on it, it's probably one of the few things I have not commented on often enough. [...] // It may shock you to hear that I am a nasty arrogant motherfucker from NY. I live in California, so that's softened me a bit, since I've gotten massage training and do breathwork on a regular basis. I also believe in being conscious whenever possible, and not freaking out when something appears that seems dangerous, but actually is just a bunch of zeros and ones traveling over communication lines. I try, but I'm just human, and often go into trances, and forget to compare my dream with what's really going on. But I'm getting better at the consciousness thing, as time goes by. [...] So if you point a finger at me saying I'm nasty, I'll agree, so don't bother. Or go ahead if it makes you feel good. [...] When I die, I don't expect a lot of people to say "He was such a nice guy!" I do hope people say "He created some cool software, had courage, and stood for good causes. [...] // My friends remind me that I'm actually a Sweet Jew from NY. I have a big laugh and a big heart, if you overlook the grandiose statements I make sometimes. In my mind sometimes I am a hardass motherfucker. And whitebread VC-types often feel threatened by me. But I think that has more to do with the fact that I know my stuff and they don't. Whatever. Whole people are so hard to characterize." Dave Winer September 3, 2000Source

"So why didn't I [Tim O'Rielly] invite Dave [Winer to the P-to-P Summit in September 2000]? I was looking for people who I thought would work well together in an unstructured way, without grand standing or insulting other participants if they happen to disagree. My experience in working with Dave is that you never know what you're going to get. He can be a great contributor, but he can also decide, for no apparent reason, that someone is somehow on "the other side," at which point he becomes disruptive and abusive. // I know Dave claims he doesn't like personal statements (except the ones he makes, of course), but he suggested that his readers ask, and you've done so. I've given Dave this feedback privately, and each time he's said it's inappropriate to tell him such things, that he believes his behavior is above reproach, and that I'm out of line for giving him any personal feedback. // When someone reserves for himself the right to "flame at will," and claims that his flames are only his quest for truth, in spite of feedback to the contrary from many people, he should expect that those people will not invite him to their meetings or discussions. I completely grant that Dave has the right to remain on the outside, to critique anyone he likes, and to crusade for whatever causes he believes in, but if he wants to be included in events that I organize, he'll have to behave more politely. He may consider that censorship; I consider it etiquette. No one disputes his right to his views--in fact, we all still read him because his views and ideas are so interesting--but I think he needs to recognize that his social habits will, from time to time, lead him to be left out of events and discussions to which he might otherwise be invited." Tim O'Reilly, September 2000, Source

Tim O'Reilly on the RSS 1.0 vs RSS 0.92 fight (9/21/2000) - this is a posting from Tim to Dave Winer: "It seems to me that you immediately hardened the battle lines, and started crying foul, when you should instead have said: "I don't think that this is the right direction for RSS 1.0." If you'd kept yourself to technical substance instead of vague (and incorrect) accusations of plots masterminded by O'Reilly, this whole contretemps could have been avoided. //As Lao Tzu says, "He who feels pricked, must first have been a bubble." I believe it was your power grab to unilaterally rewrite the RSS 0.91 spec with a Userland copyright that actually started this whole thing. You were moving to claim RSS as "yours" and a group of other developers put an oar in, and you didn't like it. // ... // In short, it looks to me like you're the one hung up about control and ownership of the name and the spec. Which is why, once again, I keep wondering why you keep trying to lay this whole problem at my doorstep." Source

Comment Dave Winer denies Tim's assertion that Netscape created RSS and Winer rewrote it with a Userland copyright. The Wikipedia article on RSS has a different account of the multiple strands of syndication's origin. betsythedevine 16:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Dave Winer reacting to Tim O'Reilly criticism: "How it got turned around to my personality is a matter for another discussion at another time with people who actually know me. Puts me on the defensive. Nice. In my own space." September 2000 Source

"You [Dave Winer] ... have crafted a reputation for being thin-skinned. You [Dave Winer] consistently employ a double standard of fairness, one that skews in favor of your own position. When others are critical of you, even when they do so in a fairly respectful manner, they are 'trashing' you, 'flaming' you, 'ripping you a new asshole,' and so on. Meanwhile, you [Dave Winer] use heavily loaded language in publicly criticizing people you disagree with, sometimes going well beyond the boundaries of what their actions appear to deserve, while defending your actions as 'speaking your mind.' 'I'm human,' you say. 'It's normal for me to lash out when I feel hurt.'" Open Letter to Dave Winer wrt Tim O'Rielly, September 2000Source

This excerpt comes from a post by someone who signs himself "John."

"Scripting News guru Dave Winer is a "dead software guy" with a signature formula for professional weblog-rolling: Mouth off first, loudly, and often. ... Winer thrives on the attention. He made all the money he thinks he'll ever need as one of the more important software designers of the PC era, and the main currency he seeks these days is the thrill of creating a little buzz among the cognoscenti. ... In one five-minute ramble, he trashes Sun Microsystems chief scientist Bill Joy ("he takes credit for other people's work") and open source guru Eric Raymond ("developers deserve to get paid"). In the course of an hour his tone changes several times as he gives even offhand remarks his full critical scrutiny. ("Dave's a little irony-challenged," says Simmons.) ... He can also be a grump. When I ask Winer to recap an anecdote from dinner the night before, he says crossly, "I told you that already," a reprimand he will repeat several times in the days ahead. It's a real-life version of his online persona: Dave Winer, the obnoxiously rational man. Still, his willingness to occasionally turn that criticism on himself, along with his genuine enthusiasm for ideas, gizmos, food, music, and friends, tempers his prickly nature and makes his company not just bearable but fun." Wired, Edward Cone, May 2001 Source

Comment: The "dead software guy" comes from a remark by Winer to Cone: "I was retired, a dead software guy, and then this came along." betsythedevine 16:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"He's a very smart and influential guy," says Ray Ozzie, the creator of Lotus Notes and now CEO of a peer-to-peer computing company called Groove Networks. "Dave has a lot of fans." Quote from Wired article cited above.

In the nearly seven years that Winer has been writing online, his work has gotten responses from big names like Bill Gates, Tim Berners-Lee, and Hitchhiker's Guide author Douglas Adams. "Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I disagree with him ... but I always know his perspective will add to the industry dialog on a given topic," writes Gates in the DaveNet guest book. "He saw the power of communication using the Internet very early on and has been very effective in using that medium to have interactive discussions on a wide variety of both technical and human topics." Says Adams in the same forum: "Dave is one of my favorite sources of information and opinion on the Web. His opinions are passionately held, well-informed, intelligent, argumentative, and quite often wrong." Quote from Wired article cited above.

"'Dave Winer has done a tremendous amount of work on RSS and invented important parts of it and deserves a huge amount of credit for getting us as far as we have,' Tim Bray, a member of the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) influential Technical Architecture Group, wrote in a June 23 Web log entry. (Bray is also a co-creator of Extensible Markup Language (XML), a (W3C)-recommended language on which RSS is based.) 'However, just looking around, I observe that there are many people and organizations who seem unable to maintain a good working relationship with Dave.' [...] // 'Why has my personality become the issue? They're using that to try to get me to shut up," Winer said in an interview. "I think most people don't have a difficult time working with me. It's unfair. It's untrue. And it's unbecoming of someone of (Bray's) stature to make statements like that. You can't create things with flames--you can only tear things down with flames. If they want to create things, they can't do it with the dislike of one person.' // [...] 'People are getting dug in on personalities and not focusing on the substance of the issues,' Palfrey added. 'This isn't about individuals; it's about whether one technology is better than another. And we need to make it a discussion about that and not if someone likes one man or not.' // Critics reject that argument, saying the format's transfer to Harvard and the creation of an RSS advisory board--which includes Winer--merely obscures his de facto control of the format." Dispute exposes bitter power struggle behind Web logs, Paul Festa, CNET News August 4, 2003 Source

"[Dave] Winer, famous among the bloggers as a somewhat cranky innovator, is busy reaching for the stars." Knight Ridder Newspapers & Seattle Times, July 24 2004 Source

"Winer can be prickly when he disagrees with someone and I number among those who have been on the receiving end of his barbs. But as far as I can tell, the guy never made a killing off any of this stuff. That counts for something. At least it should." Charles Cooper, News.com May 23, 2005 Source

"Scripting.Com - Dave Winer tracks the world of blogging and technology and has some interesting (and some cranky) thoughts." New York Times 7/26/05 Source

"I guess you've really arrived when the NY Times calls you 'cranky.' Last time they called me an 'irascible gadfly.' I guess this is progress. Permanent link to this item in the archive." Dave Winer, July 15, 2005 Scripting.Com Source

"Dave Winer is an interesting and often infuriating character. I spent some time in his vicinity in the early 2000's, and used the product he created, Radio Userland, for my second weblog for a while before abandoning it in fury. Dave reminded me of the really smart and competitive kid in junior high who sat in the front, had always done all the reading, always had his hand up eager to either show off his knowledge or ask some obscure question that didn't interest anyone else, and went into a frenzy if the teacher didn't pay attention to him. I knew kids like this in school, I may have even been a little like that myself, but we grew up. When I first met Dave at Supernova, and in my interactions afterwards, he gave the impression of still being there in the front row, competing for attention, and sulking (or worse) if he didn't get all of it. He became famous in the tech world for lashing out at people semi-randomly, but having a very thin skin himself, and being unable to take criticism. It is amazing that anyone paid attention to what he had to say -- if it wasn't for the fact that he was smart, and had some visionary ideas, even if they weren't as visionary or unique as he would want people to believe, nobody would have. Well, if tonight is any indicator, he seems to have finally grown up and mellowed out a bit, and his personality is no longer such a huge obstacle to getting his ideas across. And, he still has some very interesting ideas, even if his implementation of them still leaves a lot to be desired." GeoDog Weblog, August 21, 2005 Source

Dave quoting Dummies.com comparison of himself and Howard Dean: "Both Dave Winer and Howard Dean are known for being, well, intense characters." Dave Winer, September 27, 2005 Scripting.Com Source

John Callender describing Dave Winer's behavior in the Tim O'Rielly - Dave Winer spat: "There's a consistent pattern here: Portray the other guy in the worst possible light. Criticize him publicly, unfairly, continuously. Take any reaction on his part as proof of even greater wrongdoing, and ratchet the rhetoric up another notch." September 2000Source (This was written in response to Dave asking the community if he was acting within the bounds of civility. It was one of four responses that sided with Tim. No responses sided with Dave.)

yA page explaining how to determine your Winer Number. Google returns 350 hits on a search for "Winer Number" Google Search

Dave's Interactions with Others

A post of thanks... //... to Dave Winer, not only for getting me into blogging in the first place, but for putting this blog up on Weblogs.com for its duration (and where I expect it will remain, on a server operated by Userland).// I've said it before, When they scroll the credits of my life, Dave's is going to be one of the first names on the list. // And when they scroll the credits for blogging, outlining, writing, scripting, journalism, XML, RSS, SOAP, podcasting and a pile of other technologies, standards and practices we will all eventually take for granted, the same will be true for those as well. // Dave's a hard guy for many of us to appreciate, because he's fearless about calling bullshit on anybody and anything he thinks are misleading, misled or just plain wrong. It's hard to find anybody of prominence in a subject Dave cares about whose feathers Dave hasn't ruffled. // But Dave is like Harry Truman, who said "I give them the truth and they think it's hell." // That doesn't mean Dave is always right. Just that he's always honest. Or as close to always as anybody I've ever met. Doc Searls, "A post of thanks", October 7, 2005

" Working together. Working together. That's the point. The software that I create, the software that Engelbart creates, is about working together. It's opposite of the walls that gatekeepers create. I hated what Apple did with Hypercard. I hated what Lotus did with Notes. I hate what every self-interested promoter does to see their often shallow ideas dominate all others. General Magic, Netscape, Sun (with Java) and now the open source promoters. I hate the engineers, esp the talented ones, who seek this kind of dominance. The purpose of networks of computers is to enable people to work together. Mastering the art of working together requires that you throw the concept of dominance out the window. Goodbye. I don't want to dominate you, I want to work with you. Big difference in attitude." Dave Winer, October 6, 2000

Dave Winer decided this weekend to shut down free hosting on Weblogs.Com, a move for which he's being called graceless and abrasive, a weblog murderer, accused of a cover-up, and thoroughly flame-broiled. // The level to which some outside critics have become unhinged by this decision is demonstrated nicely by Jeneane Sessum, who writes, "last night was a 9/11 of sorts for the weblogs.com bloggers." // Sessum calls him a fascist and a psychotic. Another person even mocks "poor widdle Dave's health" (he's two years past serious heart surgery). // I can only imagine what the reaction would have been if he had deleted the sites, rather than taking the data offline for two weeks before helping users migrate to a new host. He's even offering to redirect traffic from old weblogs.com URLs, which is more than any other free host would do in similar circumstances. // When I read about this a day after it happened, I did something that none of these critics could manage, for all of their supposed concern for his users: I sent Dave an e-mail asking if he needed any help...Rogers Cadenhead on responses to weblogs.com shutdown in June, 2004

RSS Quotes

(This section was created by --Ben Houston 18:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

"Some at Microsoft complain they don't like the name RSS and propose to change it to something they like better. // [...] Heh heh heh. Very funny. Microsoft can't change those names because they already mean something, and they'd get hauled into court and would have to pay damages to the companies for trying to undermine their businesses. Now, there's no one to haul them into court for screwing with RSS, which is too bad, because they deserve to lose this case, but they will pay a price, because all their hard work in RSS will be for naught. How can you claim to support a feature when the name of the feature appears nowhere? // They'll learn two important lessons. 1. Don't screw around with things you didn't create and don't understand and 2. If you're serious about working with a community of independent developers you need to build trust, and throwing your weight around stupidly is a good way to destroy trust and to keep developers far far away from you. // Pick your battles, Microsoft. This is a dumb one." Dave Winer, "Mean International Software Monopoly", August 13, 2005 Source

"A little background: Dave Winer has done much of the development work to bring the RSS format to its current state. He is a pioneer in the software industry. He deserves his own page on Wikipedia, and sure enough, he has one. Dave has a history of complaining, loudly and repeatedly, when others step into the field he claims is his own. He has carried on a running feud with Google and Blogger over their attempts to develop a new syndication format called Atom instead of using RSS 2.0. (You can read a balanced description here and a less balanced but much more entertaining account from Ben Hammersley here.) // Winer sees this as a slap in the face and a deliberate attempt by Microsoft (and Google) to co-opt the RSS brand. I can’t understand why Dave Winer continues tilting at this windmill. (This post in particular is really over the top.) // Personally, I think Web feeds (oh, and did you notice the lower-case “w” in the IE7 dialog box?) is a much more descriptive term than RSS. If I see that term on a Web page, I can probably suss out what it means, whereas if I see RSS I need to find an encyclopedia article to explain it. // In another overwrought post, Winer speculates on what would happen if Microsoft tried to change the names of some companies that compete with it, like Yahoo and Google and Netscape. Huh? Please send a baggie of whatever you’re smoking my way, Dave. It must be really awesome. // Winer thinks this is a battle, and that Microsoft is trying to change the name of a feature because they want to screw him. (I’m not making this up. That’s really what he said.) News flash: Microsoft is in business to sell software. The reason some people at Microsoft are exploring alternatives to RSS is because people don’t understand the term. You put an RSS button on a Web page, and most ordinary people just slide right by it. I’ve been to Microsoft’s usability labs, where they test features like this. My guess is that they’ve been testing RSS features in the labs, and they’re trying to find the words that will help people understand and use this technology. Software developers who’ve seen their features go through usability testing usually get a big wake-up call from the experience. Dave, you should schedule a visit to the usability lab and see for yourself." Ed Bott, August 13, 2005 Source

"There's hope for the free world. Here's proof. Phil Ringnalda caught a wiff of something amiss in an MS embrace of RSS, wrote it up, then Dare Obasanjo explains what happened, and stands up for RSS. He reports that Microsoft will now do the right thing (he works for Microsoft, at MSN). This is an example of something I've been writing about -- that while it's nice that Microsoft embraces RSS, and has opinions about its future, the opposite is also true. Further, the previously dysfunctional RSS "community" is now acting sanely, and protecting something that's good for everyone, the simplicity of RSS. Slowly, the weird trips are rolling back, people are starting to do the right thing." Dave Winer September 20, 2005 Source

The Controversial "Credit" Section

Removed: His frequent complaints about not receiving enough credit for things he feels are his, such as SOAP, weblogs, and RSS, have also alienated many.

This is very useless as it stands. What exactly is the claim the critics make? That Winer takes credit for something he has not done? Or that he wants credit for things he has done? Also, the word "complains" has weak connotations of obnoxiousness. Whoever wrote this, please try to be more specific and more neutral.--Eloquence*

He's now complaining that we aren't giving him enough credit. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't it matter whether Dave did or did not deserve credit? Whether he was or was not ignored in the MSM podcasting frenzy? And in connection with these questions, see Podcasting#Initial_development, story from MakeYouGoHmm, and Jardin's admission that she left Winer out of her podcast-origins story in Wired. betsythedevine 09:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Supporting Quotes

(The following has been contributed by --Ben Houston 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC). I am not sure they make a convincing case that others are annoyed, although it does seem that there is issues in the community regarding credit.)

"Before the year is over, a hearty Fuck You to all reports who recited the list of top podcaster and left out my own humble pioneering podcast. I was podcasting before any of those losers, you loser. Who the fuck do you think taught them 1. How to do it and 2. (more important) That they could do it. You reporters are schmucks. I figure since you never write about me, I could go ahead and piss you off, who cares what you think since you obviously don't care what I think. Fuck you. No smiley." Dave Winer, New Years Eve 2004. Source

"First the story was that Adam Curry invented the whole thing, with a teeny bit of help from his friend Dave Winer. Now Adam Curry himself is a minor figure in the invention process, Dave Winer doesn't rate a mention, now the inventor is Evan Williams, toiling away in a SF apartment (in pajamas perhaps) with his friends, as if a multi-millionaire couldn't afford decent offices with the usual embellishments, like secretaries and conference rooms. // Evan has good reason to expect it will work, he managed to grab full credit for the nvention of weblogs. Like Curry, he claims to have told the reporters it wasn't true, but we weren't there for those conversations, and somehow the stories came out the other way." Dave Winer Feb 26, 2005 Source

"A little story. I was at a meeting with potential investors when the Fortune article hit, with all the bloggers on the cover. We had just said I was one of the leaders of the blogging revolution, and one of the investors pulled out the magazine, as if to ask why my name and picture weren't in the piece. It does hurt when you don't get the credit. It limits how much you can do in the future. It determines who gets the money to pursue their ideas. It's not something to brush aside so easily. It matters." Dave Winer Febuary 27, 2005 Source

"I think credit is always a problem no matter the circumstances. It depends on who you get credit from. The further you get from the actual situation the less people will know about who actually did the work. Personally I've found (& had to accept) I want credit from the people who matter to me, the ones who actually understand what it took & what it means. Dave, you don't seem to respect Markoff so why would you want credit from him? This isn't a rhetorical question by the way." John Mather reply to Dave Winer wrt "Markoff as kingmaker, not reporter", February 27, 2005 Source

"I winced a half-dozen times reading this interview with Adam Curry. He didn't invent podcasting, he didn't figure out that RSS would be a good transport. And he didn't write the first iPodder. Here's what Adam actually did do. He figured out the last yard was important and worked tirelessly to get people to listen to him. I was the only one who did, and I turned that idea into RSS with enclosures, and wrote the first iPodder, in 2001, three years before Adam claims to have done all this stuff. I never denied him credit for his role in this work, quite the opposite, I praised him every way I could for his insight. I also did regular podcasts for a couple of months before he started. He was listening to them, calling me all the time, ecstatic at how I was reinventing radio. There are a couple of ideas in Daily Source Code that didn't come from me, and for that Adam deserves full credit and our thanks. But these lies have gone on and on, he just doesn't stop. // ... // Thing is -- Adam's star is fading, again. At some point he's going to need some friends, and then I'm going to kick him in the ass, and then look him in the eye and say "Shouldn't have lied so much, dickhead." Dave Winer June 14, 2005 Quoting Source Original Source

"People With Erasers The Wikipedia history of podcasting has been carefully rewritten to eliminate any mention of my work. The open approach has the same problem that the proprietary one has, it can easily be manipulated by people with an axe to grind. It's nice that they give such prominent credit to Chris Lydon and Adam Curry, but the technical innovation in both cases was my work. And my podcasts were the inspiration for Curry's. How is WIkipedia going to prevent from this from happening again? That's a serious issue. It's not the first time it's happened. This is why I've never been a strong advocate of Wikipedia. // And the WIkipedia entry for RSS has been rewritten to be an ad for a competitive format. I don't dare even open my biographical page. // This is what makes innovating so damned unsafisfying. It's a total burnout to create new stuff and have other people take credit for it, over and over. Makes me want to put on the brakes and start taking out patents. This is the point I've been trying to make with the people who encourage programmers to give away all their IP. There are good reasons not to do it, there are no accolades, no incentive to be generous." Dave Winer on Wikipedia's (now remedied) exclusion on him in the Podcasting, and RSS articles. June 11, 2005 Source

"And when they scroll the credits for blogging, outlining, writing, scripting, journalism, XML, RSS, SOAP, podcasting and a pile of other technologies, standards and practices we will all eventually take for granted, the same will be true for those as well. Dave's a hard guy for many of us to appreciate, because he's fearless about calling bullshit on anybody and anything he thinks are misleading, misled or just plain wrong. It's hard to find anybody of prominence in a subject Dave cares about whose feathers Dave hasn't ruffled. But Dave is like Harry Truman, who said 'I give them the truth and they think it's hell.' That doesn't mean Dave is always right. Just that he's always honest. Or as close to always as anybody I've ever met." Doc Searls October 7, 2005 Source