Talk:Fucked Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 1, 2006. The result of the discussion was Nomination Withdrawn.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 2, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.


Contents

[edit] Speculation

OK mods - I can understand why you are correcting the simple vandalism but why do you insist on removing the speculation section? It is clearly labeled as speculation. If you have never participated on FC why are you changing it? It is FC history and an integral part of the whole internet bbs subculture - google it and look at all the hits. I am sharing my knowledge of this little piece of the internet which, to some, is more interesting than the impact of the termite on today's society.

I think you are overstepping your bounds here.

You write about things you know and I'll write about things I know, k? --Discordian 12:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

In addition - there can be an article on Felching (and it is NOT up for deletion), but you shred this one??? --Discordian 12:18, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't publish speculation. See Wikipedia:No original research. I agree with reverts. The soap opera-esque history of the FC message boards is of little interest to encyclopedia readers, and is mostly unverifiable original research. The "how to troll FC" section is contentless and useless. Rhobite 07:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
um, Rhobite... reverts came long after I posted the above comments. It was essentially a different article at that time. Just sayin'. --Discordian June 30, 2005 00:38 (UTC)


  • What Really Happened

Sequoia forced Kaplan to step down as AdBrite CEO since his reputation of being the clown of the internet directly tarnished the image of AdBrite.

They forced him to shut down the FC forum because FCers kept talking about the early click fraud debacle back when AdBrite was known as Marketbanker. Sequoia never would have noticed these discussions if it wasnt for the FCers emailing the threads to their executives.

Hence the trolls on FC were indirectly tarnishing AdBrite, an entity Sequoia has sunk 16 million dollars of VC into.

Pud no longer calls the shots at AdBrite and the FC BBS is gone forever.

[edit] Spankygate

I don't believe 'spankygate' is of interest to encyclopedia readers. If former FC message board contributors want to reminisce about past glories they should do it somewhere else. The Spinger 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fucked Company. -- BD2412 talk 05:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me from the VfD that there is a consensus that this article needs more content added to it and is currently in a sad state. May I ask my peers what they consider acceptable to put here? For example, talk of the board in general, references to Mr. Kaplan's past ventures, interviews with Mr. Kaplan in relation to the site, Mention of the Book F'd Companies, etc. What do you consider permissible? I do not wish to do a lot of work only to be told it needs to be erased due to technicalities. People seem to want more here. I am happy to help, but what is permissible. Some input please. Nisanu 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a bunch of crap

Long-term reg here. What a bunch of bullshit that main article is. FC is a free-for-all, with a relatively high signal-to-noise ratio. Reading is a lot like eating potato chips - you know it's not good for you but you can't stop eating. Eat too much and you'll get sick.

I've been on fc since ought-one. I rarely post regged anymore because of the truly psychotic whackjobs that make fc their home these days. What used to be a cross-section of geeks and dot-commers is now just a bunch of racists and assholes.

The golden days of fc are over, if they were ever here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.241.66.107 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that the article is a little sparse. But it is mostly correct. I have been on FC since late 2000 and can say there is much that should be added. Nisanu 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Sites and Metafilter links

IN RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGED VANDALISM OF THE FUCKEDCOMPANY ENTRY IN WIKIPEDIA:

The two reference links that have been appended to this article (Ghostsites & Metafilter) have nothing to do with FuckedCompany. They are an example of distortion and misleading re-direction, and do not directly relate to the topic. Clearing these off of the topic does NOT constitute vandalism. Wikipedia rules allow readers to make corrections as they deem necessary.

Apparently, if you have friends in Wikipedia, you can distort topics at will. Enough said. And enough said about how much Wikipedia can really be relied on to be an accurate source of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.108.200.164 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] FC is antiquated

FC used to be regarded as a great resource. I was a recruiter in the Bay Area until 2001 when my firm went belly up along with lots of others. We actually got good leads from the site. Nowadays it has truly fallen to the morons. Some valid rumors still circulate but if you ask me I'd say the site became irrelevant once Kaplan started adding porn to it and focusing more on Bizient, his own dot com startup. Also, I think the list of Magazines mentioned in the entry should include The Industry Standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.227.76 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] The book "fucked company"

He also released a book by the same title that described the history of about 200 companies (a page per company). One of the reviews was "he swears too much". probably should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.250.27 (talk • contribs) .

Done. jareha 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Forum Discussions

Many, many FC "spin off" boards have existed over the years and a number still exist.

If spin off boards are to be mentioned, they should all be mentioned. Or at least a number of them should be mentioned.

[edit] child porn hub?

Ok this was removed earlier, I have no idea why. There is NO debate weather or not child porn is traded on FuckedCompany. A quick search of the archives at the site is all you need to confirm. I was wondering if this is something to include in the FuckedCompany entry.

[edit] Latest on Philip Kaplan

WOW! What the fuck happened???? First the BBS dies, the DNS is gone, all his other websites are dead or inoperative.

And now his Wikipedia entry has been nearly wiped clean.

Here is some of the latest about Phillip Kaplan, aka pud. http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/controversial-philip-kaplan-out-at-adbrite/

He shut down the bbs.fuckedcompany.com forum suddenly the night of June 6, 2006 after being harassed over the Adbrite fiasco. One of his last words were "Massive ownage coming", many suggest this was a hint of shutting down the board. Since then no one has credible information on what is to become of FC, if the board will be back, or even what Mr. Kaplan is up to. Nisanu 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Unless there is some reliable source for the history of FC users trolling on other message boards, this should not be mentioned in Wikipedia's article. A reliable source would be coverage on a large news web site, a newspaper article, etc. Not a forum post. This history is of little interest to anyone who isn't already an FC user, and it violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Thanks. Rhobite 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. This is not a discussion forum; obscene comments and insults are not appreciated here. Rhobite 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, contacting people would be a violation of the Wikipedia policy against original research. If there's a reputable article about FC users' activities then you should cite it. Even so, I can't imagine how these activities are of any interest to readers. Rhobite 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so Rhobite, you are to be the judge of what may or may not be of interest to readers? --67.153.233.99 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Request to Wikipedia

As Mr. Philip Kaplan has permanently shut down his FuckedCompany websites, including his BBS, there can be no more "news" re this subject. It is time to lock this subject permanently.


[edit] Websites started by former FC posters

Are relevent because it allows the reader to actually experience FC more or less unchanged. Seeing something that is happening real time is always more insightful than having someone describe it.

[edit] Clean it up, lock it down.

There is no more history to be had here. Time to get the article cleaned up and lock it for good, unless Pud speaks publicly about what caused him to shut the place down.

It's a good idea to clean up this article, but there's no reason to lock the article permanently. There's always room for improvement. Rhobite 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Spinoff Web sites absolutely should be included

For a number of reasons, but mainly because it's part of the site's history.

Also the contention that the entry should be "locked up" because there is no new news is ridiculous. Until the entry is satisfactorily edited it should be kept open.

Addendum by another reader: The above statement is nonsensical. The FC BBS is gone forever. It boggles the imagination to see how, given that the board has been shut down for good, that there can be any "new news" about it. Again, what we have here is an attempt at free advertising at Wikipedia's expense for other web boards. Wikipedia is not the place for advertising.


Addendum by another reader: Per the terms of Wikipedia use and posting, irrelevant items are not in keeping with the Wiki philosophy. By the reasoning given above, one could add an entry relating to ANYTHING. Thus, one could argue that extraneous and irrelevant items, if they were even mentioned once on the FC board, could qualify for inclusion here in this article. That is nonsensical. One could argue, given the above, that personal attacks that occurred should also be mentioned. That too is nonsensical.

A Wiki article should include only information about the topic, and no personal attacks or attempts at advertising other web boards, which is in reality the whole idea behind including mention of these alleged spin-off boards. One could argue that a blog created by a former FCer is legitiamtely a spin-off board. And THAT makes NO sense.

If someone has created a separate board, etc., they can always create their own Wiki article. That's the best way to address these alleged spin-off boards.

EDIT

The above poster is correct. If there are to be no free advertising links what are links to Kaplans for profit websites doing here while FCers non-profit websites are banned? Seems like a double standard. Is Kaplan somehow influencing events here to avoid embarrassment?


Subsequent edit: Links to Kaplan's other sites are found in Kaplan's article. That makes sense, if they are Kaplan's creation, etc.. Posting anything and everything about Pud's other activities HERE makes NO sense. I think I and the above poster agree, in principle: no extraneous data within a Wiki article, and, definitely, NO SELF-SERVING ADVERTISING of other web boards.

[edit] Revert to earlier version?

The way this article is written now, its horrible. I've noticed all over wikipedia like the YTMND page that is self-referencing and the forum page for Something Awful is continually self-reffering. This is crap, revert the FC page to something legible and pertinent. As it is now, its a travesty. Fcyoss 14:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Waste of time. FuckedCompany is no more. What's there to revert to? Personally, I think this article should be deleted. It has no relevance to the goals and purpose of Wikipedia.

C'mon now...the mythos of what FC stood for is what's important. This site was on the pulse of the dot com busts. Its very revelant, and the wiki-editors have created a sense of wikality detrimental to the FC past.Fcyoss 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Another reader: Dude, did you just use the word "wikality"? Earth to nimrod, get a real job and make a REAL contribution to society, instead of proudly waving the Wiki banner like a retarded child. It's just not that important IN THE REAL WORLD.

Don't be a jerk. All I'm saying is that there were good versions of this article that were torn apart by editors who didn't know anything about the subject matter.Fcyoss 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Some of the past versions of this article were very well put together and provided useful information to the wikipedia reader. But someone(s) went ahead and removed most of the content. In all honesty I wonder if it is someone close to Kaplan or Kaplan himself may be doing this to try clean up his image. I think that someone should look at the past edits and check for obvious abuse where a new editor is coming in every month or so to delete things. Nisanu 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So, just because the FC message board has been taken down, we should erase all mention of it ever existing? Sounds a little Orwellian to me... isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a record? If FC was a BBS that had significant activity, it seems to me it should be recorded.

Apparently FC the dot-com website is encyclopedia-worthy, but FC the bulletin board is not. That's the only possible explanation for the complete removal of all references to it. If that's the case, just say so.

The above statement hits the nail on the head. The bulletin board was an off-shoot of the main idea: the FC dot-com website. The bulletin board itself is NOT "encyclopedia-worthy".

The current state of this article is pathetic. It appears to me that someone came in and deleted 9/10ths of the content. I am thinking that a revert with cleanup is necessary. I wonder if someone(s) is doing this with a particular motive in mind? I will leave this comment up for a week before I touch the article to allow for respones. Nisanu 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The amazing shrinking article

Heh, this article is certainly getting more 'concise' daily. Would I be amiss if I just edit it down to, "FC is a website." ?


It really irks me that the Something Awful article talks about the SA forum being "Influential on the Internet" and having "helped to perpetuate several Internet phenomena."

FC easily had a greater impact on the web community, whatever you thought of it's patron's moral fiber. The "cleaning up" of this article is disgusting. Endaira 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

  • Could someone please provide some reliable independent sources regarding this forum? Wickethewok 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
what's ridiculous is that if you look at the other forum articles, i.e. something awful, gamefaqs, etc..., you'll notice that there are not any "reliable independent sources" for them. Wikipedia as it involves internet based memes or what not is not reliable in how it applies rules and regulations. 161.253.40.203 23:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability was clear before most of the info about the site was removed-Ususally they just get tags requesting cites-I don't understand why this article has been targeted as needing such a higher bar.

This edit, for example, cut out half the article because, apparently instead of seeing if the claims could be substantiated, an editor decided "Removal of unsubstantiated claims." was the easier way to go. Before the forum sprawled out of control, fuckedcompany.com was primarily used to rapidly disseminate news of tech layoffs to the public--remember, this was before blogging had even become mainstream enuf for authors to start to write 'how to blog' books. If the editor had chosen to investigate, there are plenty of sources that could have substantiated most if not all of the removed claims. This is just the barest tip of the iceberg. this goes even further back--plenty of info--many Wikipedia articles have unsubstantiated claims. Ususally they just get tags requesting citations--I don't understand why this article has been targeted as needing such a higher bar. 71.231.107.188 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the editing of this page has been completely irresponsible

it has been edited to remove any mention of the message board which was the component that drove most of the traffic... it also was a vibrant community, that was dispersed when the board was shut down. it's appalling to call this a legitimate accurate portrayal of the web site if this is not discussed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.222.183.75 (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Pud's current status, AdBrite, Ilona, etc.

I think that Pud's Wiki article should be updated to be current, including his www.pud.com website, his relationship with Ilona, AdBrite issues, etc.


[edit] Pud should comment here, or on www.pud.com

It's the least Pud can do. Everyone who was an FC "regular" still would like "closure".


[edit] This is a travesty!

I participated on several of the FuckedCompany message boards for years, and from looking at the current wiki page, it's like that never happened. How did this propagandistic deletion of history occur? What's the point of having a wiki on a topic if some biased interests are able to erase the history so easily? Reversion to earlier, information-full versions of this page should happen IMMEDIATELY! Once the information is suitably dense, then and only then should this topic be LOCKED, since Kaplan took the page down. Peahippo 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)