Talk:TechCrunch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.


Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] A couple of edits

I added the CrunchGear blog to the list of blogs in the TechCrunch Network (it was launched a few days ago). I also replaced the word "exclusively" with the word "principally" when referring to Mike Arrington writing TechCrunh--Marshall Kirkpatrick makes a large number of posts on the blog now. 68.9.253.26 14:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)JoshCatone

there should be something mentioning the controversy featured on digg http://www.digg.com/tech_news/TechCrunch_controversy_EXPOSED

[edit] Vandalism? An Experiment?

http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0c22a95a-2d81-4f40-bbce-c763d8447468

"As an experiment I've updated the Wikipedia entry for TechCrunch with a mention of some of the claims about Mike Arrington's conflicts of interest on the site and references to negative blog posts but no link to his side of the story. TechCrunch is big enough for Mike not to care about this but what should be his course of action? According to Jimmy Wales and the pundits it seems (i) he can't edit the entry himself nor (ii) can he solicit others to do so. Instead he needs to write a white paper about his position on conflicts of AND then link to it from the talkback page for his entry.Yeah, I'm sure that's going to get read as much as the Wikipedia entry." ~ 24.29.83.3

Interesting discussion, so now its up to the Wikipedia community to decide what to do. Delete the edit as vandalism? Add the balanced link to Mike Arrington's posting? I've edited the entry, adding a link to Mike's posting. BradC 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep it and/or create a 'criticism' section amongst others. Computerjoe's talk 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps revert it as WP:POINT? Computerjoe's talk 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete it. Microsoft is the dumbest company ever. I hope they can't sell Vista and are forced to go out of business. Microsoft doesn't deserve to compete with the likes of Google and Apple. 72.76.192.140 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be needlessly provocative. Thank you. ~ 24.29.83.3

I put description of MS-Techrunch conflict into section Serg3d2 02:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed that, as it's both irrevalent to the point (i.e. criticism), and blatently incorrect - the criticism existed prior to Dare's editing. Dare simply added it; while his motivation was part and parcel of his Microsoft employment, the information is not related. ~ 24.29.83.3

To Mister 24.29.83.3, Please sign your posts. Do remember that you are not anonymous on wikipedia, as anyone (Who is logged in) can go into the page history and see who modified it, when they modified, and what they changed. Thank You! Rubbicub 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the Criticism section. Theres is hardly anything biased about it and it is a completely valid argument against them. Wikipedia has become "redtaped" to the point of being rediculous and this is a good example of it. ~24.236.237.88

Why do you keep reverting criticism section? It is both factual and a fair shot at NPOV. 131.107.0.106 09:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the entire "criticism" section, which has now expanded, was added by a microsoft to make a point that Wikipedia is flawed. His point seems to be accurate given what's happened since. The "criticims" are true only in that people wrote them. I do not believe it is accurate to point to unverified blog posts that say we take money for posts, nor do I think it is accurate to point to a ONA link that I have flat out said was an innacurate statement of what occured and which was written by a paid consultant to big media. Finally, the term "franchise" has legal meaning and is inaccurate. Lastly, if I have violated some wikipedia rules of conduct by writing on this discussion page, I apologize. Frankly, I'm not even sure I'm allowed to read a page that is written about my company, let alone participate in the discussion. - Mike, TechCrunch

Interesting remarks being made about this article vis-à-vis responsible encyclopedists. "The TechCrunch listing on wikipedia has a number of errors. But there is no way in hell I’d ever think about fixing those errors. The wikipedia community has completely intimidated me to the point where making a change to that site is unthinkable." see: http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=899&tag=nl.e622. So, wuzzup folks? Are we engaging in "bullying for truthiness"?

[edit] my $0.02 / creating Media Cabal case

I created a Mediation Cabal case request. My opinion:

Delete, delete, delete. And admonish User:Swdavis67 he's violating Wikipedia policy guidelines. Adding and then reverting the criticism section is a clear, admitted violation of wp:point. As a Microsoft employee (apparently) he's on thin ice vandalizing Wikipedia to prove the point by example that if Microsoft can be treated unfairly, so can TechCrunch.

Is the material appropriate despite the bad motive for adding it? No. Process is important here. The motive itself is a POV violation. As ot the substance, a litany of accusations of editorial bias against a tech blog is not encyclopedic in nature and is therefore not helpful or informative as Wikipedia content. At most the topic deserves a single sentence with a string of citations for people who want more info, not half the entry.

It's hardly news, much less important, whether TechCrunch does or does not contain editorial bias. TechCrunch blog entries are partisan and opinionated on their face, as are most industry insider blogs. You could make similar "criticism" of bias against most any of them. That kind of contentiousness is hardly the right stuff to clutter up the pages of Wikipedia.

Finally, this tempest in a teapot proves nothing. It's hard enough to get things right when people try to be productive. Harder yet when they're in a silly and unproductive edit war. Yes you can disrupt things here by acting like a jerk. Point taken. As a percentage of overall content these spats are just a blip. When they happen there are mechanisms within Wikipedia to deal with it, the most obvious being courtesy and common sense. When that fails, plenty of options before calling the New York Times for yet another uninformed article about what's wrong with Wikipedia. Wikidemo 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've researched and added a history of the revert/edit wars to the request for mediation. The Microsoft employee who initiated the stunt and the proprietor of TechCrucnh have been duking it out on various blogs, and I'm asking them to come back here and straighten things out. I can't tell who is who because all of the people who kept reverting the derogatory "criticisms" were from anonymous accounts. User:Swdavis67, who I accused of violating user policy, is not the same account as the original poster from Microsoft so I'll tentatively back away from that accusation. One of the reverters is now a blocked account for making death threats.  :( Can we please come together to produce a productive, informative, article appropriate to Wikipedia rather than trying to prove something or score points? Either the "criticisms" of TechCrunch are appropriate content for Wikipedia or they are not. Let's sort it out! Pesonally, I do NOT have a stake and having raised the issue my opinion is clear but I don't think I should be the one advocating one side or the other. Wikidemo 05:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Blog coverage of this issue. Wikidemo 02:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • crunchnotes blog -- includes back and forth between alleged Wikipedia "vandal" Dare Obasanjo and TechCrunch principal Michael Arrington
  • ValueWiki blog -- coverage of this controversy
  • ValueWiki list -- one of "10 Great Blogger Temper Tantrums"
  • Dare Obasanjo's blog -- admits to posting derogatory references as an experiment
  • Channel 9 forums -- someone says this controversy " puts dent in the credibility of Wikipedia for anything other than the Table of Elements"

[edit] Mediation Not Resolved

The mediation has been resolved...Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-01_TechCrunch#Compromise_2. I've begun editing the article again. Hopefully, that's that. Thanks Wikidemo for starting the mediation and thanks User:Anthony_cfc for mediating. Jonathan Stokes 23:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This mediation is a farce and has resulted in there being a criticism section that says there has never been a proven case of conflict of interest. I never received any mail about this case and it seems it was initiated and decided by parties close to techcrunch
The above comment was made by User:Swdavis67, who has several times restored the "criticisms" section of the article. The most recent two reverts came after the matter was already settled by a Medcabal consensus.
We have gone out of our way to involve this user in the process. The records show the user was notified like everyone else at the commencement of the medcabal mediation via message to his/her discussion page. They chose not to participate and a decision was reached in mediation. I went out of my way to post a suggestion for how and where to bring an appeal to the result. Yet the user continued to simply revert the article to suit their liking in violation of the consensus result, in the processes mentioning that they did not respect and would not abide by the result.
Wikipedia moderators have been alerted to the situation. We warn the user we will take the issue up with them as a violation of Wikipedia policy if it cannot be resolved here.
Again, please DO NOT restore the criticism section again. If you do not like the result, use proper Wikipedia procedures. Wikidemo 10:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LIVING compliance reminder

All users are reminded that because this article concerns an indentified person behind the company, it must strictly comply with Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living persons. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Techcrunch.gif

Image:Techcrunch.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mobilecrunch dispute

There is a new mention of a dispute over Oliver Starr's departure from Techcrunch/Mobilecrunch and hiring by The Guidewire Group. Are employment matters, allaged payment disputes, and conflicts of interest really noteworthy enough to discuss? If you think so and it's not an NPOV attack I won't object, but if someone could add a cite that would be great. Incidentally, if someone could write an article for The Guidewire Group that would be great.

[edit] Criticism section / dead pile

Cleaning up some mess from the criticism section. Not assuming any bad faith on anyone's part, but people sure seem to like to add negative information about TechCrunch. Rather than simply deleting, I'll keep them here as a courtesy in case anyone wants to comment, re-source, restore, etc.

  • ...most recently with Edgeio, a classifieds site partly owned by TechCrunch Chief editor Michael Arrington<ref>[http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/08/10/sell-your-digital-wares-through-edgeio-paid-content/#comment-1549476 TechCrunch readers accusing Michael Arrington of shielding Edgeio from other classifieds website]</ref>
User-submitted comments on a blog are not proper sources. See sourcing policy. Moreover, citing a blog as evidence of what users say on the blog is original research. I have doubts whether this could ever be a valid criticism to raise given that it seems to relate to Arrington's actions with respect to a company other than TechCrunch. Further, as per the last mediation, it was pointed out that a criticism section should not overwhelm the weight of the article. In a comprehensive article about the subject some criticism may be warranted if it is truly germane to the company and not just random detractors or incidents. If a reputable newspaper were to publish a serious expose of a company, the key issues might be noteworthy. This does not seem to fit that category. Wikidemo 11:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a sentence fragment so I'm removing it as a matter of copy-editing. It seems to be half of a sentence that was in fact retained following the mediation process. I have my doubts about the appropriateness of the tone, but if anyone cares to dig up the other half of the sentence and add it back I wouldn't object.Wikidemo 11:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This is worth re-adding as it received a hell of a lot of coverage in the blogosphere. I will try to clean it up later. Computerjoe's talk 17:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)