Talk:The Freecycle Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Archive Version of this page

The non-vandalized version of this page is available for reference purposes at: http://freesharing.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Freecycle_Network

--Razmear 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the misleading statement above, only one controversial section of the article was significantly edited so its locked version is a reasonably factual representation of the subject. An unmonitored, externally linked version of this article is provided above by the owner of an outspoken opposing organization to The Freecycle Network, is unnecessary and should be reasonably questioned.

What is being characterized here as valdalism is simply editing performed to resolve heavily biased and unsubstantiated content in order to bring it better into compliance with Wiki Good Article standards. You can find some ongoing discussion of these points here and here.

-- Dharmaburning 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Razmear is Eric Burke. He owns Freesharing.org and is no friend of Freecycle. He should not be here. 216.103.255.18 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never hidden my identity, however your statement that I should not be here is quite dictorial and is not based in any policy of Wikipedia. Also I am not against Freecycling, which is the act of giving items away freely. It is my love of the concept that drove me to create freesharing.org so that the process could continue in an independent directory with a true grassroots movement as it should be, and as it once was within the Freecycle Network before Deron went a bit nutty with the trademark, killing off groups, and getting almost a quarter million dollars from Waste Management, which has a horrid environmental record. --Razmear 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks, Dharmaburning. Razmear quite clearly has an agenda, as also manifestly do you. Pot, kettle and blackness. I have had the privilege of being criticized by both pro and anti TFN people, and know people in and out of TFN. My aim has been for this page to reflect TFN as it is, warts and all, successes and controversies. From an encylopedic point of view, all of these may be entirely ephemeral, however on that basis 75% of Wikipedia would be culled. SagePose 08:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving this page past the edit war

Please list below the factual inaccuracies or non-encylopedic terms you consider to be present on the last pre-edit war version of this page - Razmear's edit of 18 Jan 2007. [1]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SagePose (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

The discussion has already begun, as of 02/02/07, at the bottom of the Controversies Section, which I previously pointed out. There is no need for multiple discussion areas. Please direct your responses there as it corresponds to the respective section of the article, including links to the edited content for ease of reference. Dharmaburning 10:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been more allegations flying around than hard facts. It's also spread across the page. Listing them here will make it easier to get consensus all round. Presuming of course that all wish to discuss openly and get consensus. I suggest any meta-discussion is continued below and we stick to the facts in this section. SagePose 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, please take the time to read clearly and thoroughly. Please review items AT THE BOTTOM of the Controversies Section which clearly lists the items for open discussion that were edited and why. Dharmaburning 11:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a list of entire sections that had been removed, with sweeping statements to justify it. Facts please. SagePose 11:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for locking this page. Unfortunately the vandal got the last edit/deletion of data in before the lockdown. The consensus in the discussion area is to revert to the Jan 18, 07 revision and use that as a basis for moving forward. There probably were valid edits made by the same use (2 IPs and now Dharma), but because the user made about 100 revisions to achieve these edits, while also deleting long standing data the only reasonable way to recover the deleted text was to revert to the last stable version. I would request that the article be reverted one last time to it's [sic: its] previous state, and also suggest that Dharma use the preview function when making edits instead of creating a hundred incremental edits until it looks good to her. --Razmear 13:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to look at 67/Dharma's edit history and it seems her goal on Wikipedia is solely to act as an editor for The Freecycle Network. In the interest of full disclosure please let us know what your relationship is with TFN. Are you a paid staff member? See the comments in Regiving 's history for an example. I also noticed in your 3RR report that you stated that other editors were supporting your point of view, yet I've seen no evidence of anyone but your IDs calling for your version to be the base point for discussion. --Razmear 14:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your research and conclusions are as incorrect as they are biased. Accusations and poorly drawn conclusions are not geared toward an amiable solution. I pray that you'll change your approach. Dharmaburning 17:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralisation & encyclopaedic v Journalistic nature of Wikipedia articles

to main section

I have edited the section about the new centralised website - the author does not seem to realise that the proposed "centralised" website is to be optional for Freecycle groups. In many ways "centralised" is an inaccurate description as instead of having one centre in Yahoo groups the proposed new set up will be more decentralised - allowing the option of Yahoo Groups or the new web based host.

    There is considerable skepticism inside and out TFN about (i) whether the new web site will ever happen, and (ii) the ability of mods to exist outside it. Given the record of TFN on taking over or closing groups that don't toe the line, the skepticism seems to have some basis. On the question of whether it will happen, there's now a project manager (and a blog) and it may turn out this time. SagePose 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

the section below has been removed from the Freecycle section as it does not relate to the Freecycle Network - if it has a place in this article it is surely in the controversies section rather than in the section introducing what Freecycle is!

The term "Freecycle" may have first been used by "Salvager Dali" in Toronto. [2] The concept and term "FreeCycle" were used and trademark asserted by Hemp Online Inc in 2000. [3]

   Well move it to controversy in that case, rather than remove it. It does seem relevant, although more so if we could have a 'freecycle' or 'freecycling' page. That would stir up a different hornet's nest (zebra6 is probably the guy to make that happen ;-) SagePose 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Concern

I am also very concerned at the length of the controversies section compared to the rest of the article and continued journalistic rather than encyclopaedic nature of this page which has lots of allegations but very few facts. Much of the controversy is US centric - and does not reflect the experience of Freecycle groups in Europe who have been spared the trademark controversy.

   The bulk of TFN is in the US so it's not surprising that the issues are. I don't buy the ratio of good-to-bad idea; it's a childish version of objectivity. The space given should reflect the issues out there. That said, there could be more in the Successes section, and even recognition that where there are spin-off groups, these have been inspired by Beal. SagePose 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole article read like investigative journalism rather than encyclopedic writing. Freedom of speech is important much of it might be appropriate on a blog - but does seem rather against the spirit of what Wikipedia sets out to achieve. --Topmark 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Taking your suggestion seriously would mean removing the article altogether; Wikipedia is full of entries that may, in the encylopedia frame of time, prove entirely transient. The issues stirred up by TFN seem to have some worth in terms of online communities generally. Perhaps in 20 years time TFN will be forgotten but Wikipedia entries will be mined by anthropologists researching online social dynamics. SagePose 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this article is about one particular nonprofit organization, not about the term "freecycling" more generally. Accordingly, all discussion of the other/historical use of the term should be in a completely different WikiPedia article, possibly in a WikiDictionary instead of WikiPedia itself. There should be a link to it from the references or links section, and the disambiguation page above this article should link that other article. -- Robert Maas -- URL: tinyurl.com/uh3t

[edit] Propaganda

Do you have a freecycle success story? Why not post it here!?

--egstcm 09:37, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Because that would not really fit into the encyclopedic format.--Palnatoke 09:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is Freecycle a social network service? --Palnatoke 22:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Possibly a propaganda. Be bold and correct it. Pavel Vozenilek 01:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Propaganda" is pretty harsh. The Freecycle Network introduces people who live near each other and share the same ideas about reducing waste and being economical. One of the fairly distinctive features of Freecycle is that it is local in every community it exists in. When you join a Freecycle group, all the people you communicate with live in your community. I guess it creates a social network in a different way than most other websites. But I do think it falls within the definition.

--Manchineel 15:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

On most cases, FreeCycle is a great program. It teaches people to share what they have, and instead of throwing things out that maybe useful to another person then to just.. give it away! Instead of having a garage sale, you can just put an offer and the item on the freecycle group and you are liable to get dozens of replies.

Kimsan 01:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Kimsan

The "controversy" section is accurate--I followed up on the editor's link and he's a collector of legal controversies in general, and not a freecycle member. I'm intimately involved in this case and can verify it's a genuine legal dispute, and TFN has been using some questionable tactics. For example, the injunction against Oey in Arizona prohibited him from making "any comments disparaging TFN's possible trademark." Under that rationale, I'm not allowed to say, "You know, Kleenex really shouldn't be a trademark anymore."

The analogy between Craig and Deron Beal is flawed; TFN wants both to increase salaries from "donations," *and* maintain 501(c) non-profit status. That's the impetus for the trademark suit, which asks, can non-TFN members "freecycle," or do they have to freeshare? The entry as-is objectively reflects very real troubles for the company.

[edit] Controversy

Further information on this topic located in the Controversies section, below.

It seems strange to me that the 'Controversy' section lists 'a news story' as the source. It would be significantly better to actually quote the news source. With a possible link.

--Manchineel 16:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I am resisting the urge to completely re-edit the 'Controversy' section. It is not NPOV. Does the Craigslist page bash Craig Newmark for getting paid? This is the work of a disgruntled Freecycle member. Can someone else take a stab at making it more neutral? --Manchineel 05:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I expected it to, especially when I added the section a few weeks ago[4]. (Read more about it by visiting freecycle groups' message archives at the time.) I think the news article[5] is NPOV -- go have a look at it and you're welcome to improve this section. --Perfecto 02:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I visited craigslist, as mentioned, and found a similar yet usable paragraph:

On August 13, 2004, Craig announced on his blog that auction giant eBay had purchased a 25% stake in the company from a former principal. Some fans of craigslist have expressed concern that this development will affect the site's longtime non-commercial nature, but it remains to be seen what ramifications the change will actually have.

Is this the NPOV you seek, Manchineel? --Perfecto 17:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Further information on this topic located in the Controversies section, below.

[edit] NPOV?

Speaking of NPOV/propaganda problems...how the heck did the section "Like Wildfire" ever make it past regular Wikipedians? It's slanted so horribly pro as to make any anti slant of the "Controversy" section it replaced look mild by comparison.

I've placed the problem section below and removed it from the main page, and I've replaced the most NPOV version of "Controversy" on the main page.

The section below should NOT be placed back into the article until it is cleaned up a whole heck of a lot to conform to NPOV standards.—chris.lawson (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is that there are different people who are interested in editing this page with different agendas. There are people who are upset about the way Freecycle is managed and there are people who are working inside of the Freecycle Network who are concerned about the way the other group is trying to portray Freecycle. My personal decision has been to generally watch this page, without making any edits. I reserve the right to make edits when I am fairly certain that I can do so in an NPOV manner. But in general I recognize that I am not really the person who can make an NPOV article.

Please don't try to make this a page to vent your frustrations. This is an encyclopedia. We should try to have some constructive discussion on this page about how to move forward with this page in a constructive manner. Just making rash edits that you know (or maybe don't know) are going to be quickly reverted is not a good long term solution.

--Manchineel 04:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There's been a recent outburst of anti-TFN changes, and an undiscussed NPOV categorization (partially justified by all the aforementioned changes) by a partisan editor. I've gone over the recent anti-TFN additions, and found pratically everything to be as redundant as it was partisan. Hence this is back to the last pre-anti-TFN-cluster edit. I would also ask that the NPOV alert categorization is a cop-out - if there are PoV issues, then edit the page, or at the very least put what you see as the issues on the discussion page. That way, there's a hope of getting them ironed out. -- SagePose, 30 December 2005

That was me who put the NPOV tag on- yes, I'm a Freecycle group moderator, but I don't know if that makes me 'partisan'- I certainly don't feel that Freecycle or anything esle for that matter is above critisism, and sorry if tagging was seen as a 'cop out', but I don't have the time to engage with this article right now- however it did seem to be one long list of critisisms against TFN, not nuetral at all, and needed to be flagged accordingly. Well done for the rewriting efforts you've just put in quercus robur 17:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should have the NPOV tag. There are more controversies listed than any mention of the good that has been done. An example of one bias is in the Structure section-- I edited it to read Board of Directors-- Deron Beal, Jennifer Columbus, Jolie Sibert. Rather than the relationships of the board (which were previously mentioned). My edit was reverted or reedited. This seems biased, like a "dig".71.35.149.207 15:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 2 January 2006

Curious that user 71.35.149.207 is so keen on names! Please sign in, and give yourself at least something more useful than an IP address. The Board of Directors change wasn't itself reverted, it was included in a mass reversion of lots of anti-TFN changes, so hardly a 'dig'. Seems to me that in this case the relationships between the Board memebrs are of more general interest than the names, although it would look better with both - why don't you do that? A numerical balance between ups and downs is a naive view of 'balance' - NPoV should reflect the way things are rather than the tidy way we might like the world to be. There is another problem with this page - which is separating out the generic meme of freecycling from the non-profit organization which is best known for it. My personal preference would be for a page that speaks in general about the activity, rather like recycling, with references to the various groups and directories helping to organize it, and full credit to Mr Beal for evangelizing it. That would remove the whole point of having TFN controversies and Board of Director's listings in the first place. SagePose, 2 January 2006

Noticed more censorship by Dharmaburning of this page (he has the audacity to refer to others reinstating his vandalism as vandalism), and some flagrant puff writing favoring Freecycle Network. SagePose 13:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've censorsed someone on this page? If you have an issue, instead of make baseless accusations, show supporting evidence of your claim. Otherwise bag it and take it home, it doesn't belong here. There are also wiki processes to deal with such problems, providing they're genuine. Dharmaburning 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of base to the censorship charge in the page history. You have continually snipped out sections unflattering to your cause, beginning with wholesale changes when you first appeared. SagePose 16:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd as that's exactly what you did a few days ago after returning from a four month absence after I filed a complaint against you for doing the same previously. You didn't just replace text you claim was snipped out before, you also made some pretty sweeping, wholesale changes to the content as a whole. The editing history is unanimous. Dharmaburning 08:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I tidied up the article somewhat...

The line

A year later, the global web site is no more, although $45K has been paid to Beal in salary, and an unstated sum on legal expenses.

makes no sense to me because it says TFN received the money in Feb 2005, so not a year has passed. Can someone please elaborate?

Wikipedia is not a link repository. It's not Wikipedia's job to "promote" alternatives to Freecycle. It's not Wikipedia's job to list websites that discuss the controversies. HTML links added to the article must be either directly related to Freecycle or are references or reliable sources.

Any comments? -- Perfecto 01:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with you about linking to websites that criticize Freecycle. Many Wikipedia articles have external links to critics. In the interest of NPOV we should recognize that some people oppose Freecycle and provide links to them, such as the BusinessWeek blog post. Furthermore it is inappropriate for you to add warnings to the article as if they reflect Wikipedia policy; they don't. Rhobite 02:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for respecting my rewrite. OK I concede with your revert, except for the "Alternatives" section. If we are offering alternatives, we should offer them as articles, not as links. If tonight, say, I register the "FreeReUseWorld.com" domain, and put up as a yet-another-freecycle-alternative website, will WP let me put my link in there tomorrow morning? -- Perfecto 03:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that the Category:Freecycling has been depoliticized, I'm not certain that the links to TFN alternatives are appropriate in this page. If people want to find out other regiving network they can follow those links, and there's no more reason to put Freesharing or CurbCycle on the TFN page as there is to put TFN on the Freesharing page. I can also see that others may feel Regiving should be a topic rather than a category, but that's a discussion for another page. -- SagePose 8th January 2006

More external links removed recently by me and RexNL. The alternative regiving groups can have themselves listed in the generic regiving page, and not clutter up the Freecycle Network page, which is specifically describing the Arizona non-profit corporation. SagePose 24th January 2006

FYI - my two alterations - I update the link so the name was entirely highlighted for the Group Outreach so it doesn't say "8" and says what the link is, and I deleted the duplicate link of the Grist article. Don't need the same article there twice. I'd like to know if I can add some external links that have more recent articles? Dora

IMO, whenever a WikiPedia article is specific to one company, regardless of whether it's profit-making or non-profit, it's entirely appropriate for the article to point to another article which lists/indexes/categorizes all alternative to that one company, and it's appropriate for that other article to either contain feedback about the various companies in the discussion section or to have a pointer to a WebSite which is dedicated to such discussion/debate. Also, anyone should be allowed to set up their own WebPage which fully expresses their personal view on such controversies, exempt from anyone else editing the content, and then post a link from either the links section or the discussion section of that alternatives article.

As for controversy about malicious editing of this article: Anyone should be allowed to make a copy of the complete WikiPedia article, possibly merging various content from the current frozen version and/or the last stable version before the edit war and/or other versions that happened to have useful content not in either the frozen nor last-stable version. Then post a link from this discussion page to here is how I feel the WikiPedia article should look Other readers can then browse these various ideas of how the article should look, and do a copy-and-paste job to produce their own best-of-all-versions. If somebody realizes somebody else has done a better job, that person may then replace his/her version with an exact copy of the other person's version plus a note at the top identifying it as such an identical copy. Eventually I hope emotions would settle down and one of these many private versions would be agreed as best-of-all and accepted to replace the live WikiPedia article.

BTW, a day or so ago, before I saw mention of "FreeCycle" on KGO-TV-7 evening news and went to Google to search for it, found the word used in many ways, so added "WikiPedia" as second keyword, which took me to disambiguation page, whereupon I saw all this controversy. Anyway, before all that, before I was even aware of FreeCycle, I thought of an idea that would be useful for this kind of edit-war: There could be a Web site specifically for open-community (any one may participate) editing toward concensus edit. What happens is that at any time anyone can create a Web page on his/her own private site, the connect to the edit-debate site and submit the URL of his/her private WebPage. The edit-debate site downloads that article to verify it exists and to archive its contents, and compares the contents with previous WebPage contents submitted by other people. If some submission is identical to something submitted by some previous author, obviously a "me too" copy, a "second" in parlimentary jargon, then only a single copy is retained but with both authors listed, the original author listed first and successive "me too" "second" authors listed successively in chronological sequence. If all variant articles totally disappear, replaced instead by a single version which everyone me-toos, then we can announce unanimous concensus has been achieved. Otherwise, the number of Web pages that are duplicate can effectively stand as a poll of popularity of the various versions, and the edit-debate site can always list the different versions in descending order per popularity. Whenever somebody wishes to withdraw their previously posted version, whether it be an original or a "me too" copy, they connect to the edit-debate site, submit the same URL again, the edit-debate site tries to download it, gets a 404 not found error, and consequently deletes that person's authorship of that version. If that was the only/last remaining author, the entire version is expunged from the edit-debate site.

I was thinking of implementing something like that on my CGI site. But if somebody already did something like that, please let me know so I won't waste my energy duplicating the idea. (To find out how to send e-mail to me with special tag to bypass my spam filter, connect to tinyurl.com/uh3t and click on Contact Me.)

Mention is made above of Category:Freecycling. Would somebody please edit that mention to be a actual link, so we don't have to spend ten minutes with a search engine to try to find it.

-- Robert Maas -- tinyurl.com/uh3t

[edit] Lots of theories

Someone anonymous insists on this paragraph under "Controversies":

Lots of theories - Remember that there are many differing opinions about this, and many of them are incorrect. FACT: The plan to create a new website does not include shutting down Yahoo groups at all. Using the new site will be entirely optional. FACT: Sites that use the name without authorization are asked not to. FACT: Freecycle requires it's groups to be a spam, begging, scam, and abuse free area for members. Groups which do not enforce these rules often leave the network because they want to run it their own way.

Is there truth to any of this? If yes, then we'll repair the article. If no, then someone should stop insisting, please. -- Perfecto 04:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph has some opinions, but not much in way of fact.

The goal, stated on the Freecycle website (http://www.freecycle.org/freecyclopedia.php?tpl=food) is to get off YahooGroups. Groups that don't follow current procedure are removed, so it is reasonable for Freecycle groups to expect to be forced off YahooGroups in the future. The trademark application reinforces this, since it's worded to suggest that Freecycle provides the service directly rather than merely a directory of YahooGroups.
The experience of groups that have been purged is the arrival of a Cease and Desist email, copied to YahooGroups, and the removal of the group days later. In some cases, the C+D has been marked as spam by group owners Yahoo mail accounts, and the group deleted with no effective notice. Example email at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freecyclenext/message/1884
The point about spam or scams makes no sense - there is no evidence that TFN is pursuing anything other than alleged trademark violations. Sounds like special pleading to me. Active groups with many members contributing to the freecycle goal of keeping stuff out of landfill have been deleted. --- SagePose, 13th November 2005

Thank you for coming back, SagePose, and helping us clean up the article. (Care to create an account?) FYI, the freecyclenext message is for members only. Also, can you double check the three Grist links you added? The trademark article is misnamed. -- Perfecto

17:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the dual link to the Grist articles - there was only one. Dora Jan 2006

[edit] Freecyclehubbub

Is http://freecyclehubbub.blogspot.com/ really a notable resource? It keeps getting put back in the article. Yahoo and Google report no links pointing to this rant. -- Perfecto 17:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'useless intro'

Restored '13 words' of 'useless intro', otherwise the section has no context. quercus robur 00:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not join independent clauses with a comma. There are a number of controversial issues concerning the Freecycle Network, these include; is two grammatically-complete clauses. Use a semicolon.
Use a colon after an independent clause to introduce a list of particulars, not a semicolon.
I think the Controversies heading followed by a bulleted list does the same job as the 13-word intro. Well, OK then — at least it's not "There had been or are several issues that are somewhat controversial concerning the current operation of the Freecycle Network beginning at one point of time in the past. In fact, these controversial issues includes at least the following:". :) -- Perfecto 01:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Vandalism

The wikipedia page has recently been the subject of some controversy within The Freecycle Network, and one consequence of that appears to be repeated attempts to remove any hint of criticism from this page. I'll continue to keep an eye on it, whilst I realize there are some further steps required to iron out all POVs in the text as it stands. Having personal friends who are active official Freecycle moderators, as well as being in touch with both anti- and non-freecycle groups, I believe puts me in a good position to do so. On that note I would like to correct the attacks made on TFN networks as described to me: this page is _not_, as claimed by Deron Beal on e-mails shown to me, the work of ex-mods with dubious personal histories. -- SagePose - 2 Dec 05

If it's true that "this page is not the work of ex-mods with dubious personal histories", then why is Tim Oey's name all over it? He is trying to take the Freecycle name for his own personal uses. [Anon]

Where there are repeated reverts,dereverts and rereverts it indicates that the issue should move to the discussion page. However, I have noted some recent edits against an IP address which not only have removed material but have given 2 false reasons for doing so. (i) Removed items with named witnesses (and a named recantation in one case) as allegedly 'anonymous', and (ii) removed long-standing text and claimed misleadingly that it was a 'reversion' or 'return to original edit'. SagePose 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Except you seem to enjoy in engaging in the game of summarily reverting, rereverting yourself, without open discussion on this page in an appropriate manner or section. Especially when it's been clearly indicated that items were edited for legitimate purposes that differ from your position or perspective, and you characterize that as vandalism. That is not a rational or reasonable attempt to discuss these issues. I look forward to the opportunity to do so. 67.121.144.14 07:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit hyprcritcal seeing how you chomped the article apart without any discussion or even having a user account. Why do you think you can delete significant parts of this article without it being called vandalism, but when we come back to fix it we need to make sure it's ok with you? --Razmear 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On the same token, do people need to ok it with you before they make edits? No. The solution in any disagreement is discussion, not summary reversion. The content is not lost and this works both ways. Discussion is appropriately mounted here regarding the hows and whys something was edited. It is clearly against Wiki policy to summarily revert legitimate edits simply because you disagree with them. That is in fact vandalism and against Wiki policy. If you have a legitimate concern about edits and you would like to make a case for discussion, I welcome it. 67.121.144.14 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between making edits and deleting whole sections which you do not personally believe to be true. If you wish to discuss the events and facts that you deny exist, I suggest you visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fcnext/ where you can view the cease and desist letters sent by TFN prior to groups being deleted and you can even talk to the people who did the deleting as they have since left TFN and are sharing the truth at that location. This is not the proper forum to debate the facts, as pasting evidence into here would be rather unwieldy, however if you view the evidence at that location, and ask folks to send you more, I'm sure that you will come to see what the facts are. If you continue to delete facts from this article without even seeking the truth, then you are either a vandal or working for TFN to improve their tainted image. --Razmear 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read these items, I'm well informed. However, these items have nothing to do with my edits and aren't a blanket justification for summarily reverting all of my edits and violating Wiki policy. Beyond that, if you have specific arguments to place regarding edited sections, please address them appropriately in the section on this page. Lumping the discussion here makes it very difficult for everyone to follow along and participate. 67.121.144.14 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to educate you on the facts which you can view yourself with a few mouse clicks, or even scrolling up or down right here. If you wish to report me to the Wiki staff for reverting your deletions, then go right ahead, they will see who the vandal is in this case. I will continue to revert your deletions that only serve to hide the history of TFN and to make the company look better. Eventually the Wiki staff will lock the article down again as they have in the past to prevent folks like you from editing it only to serve your own political agenda. --Razmear 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you justify summarily reverting edits such as cleaning up formatting, adding 'Related Topics', expanding the list of associated categories? If that's your idea of a political agenda and covering up facts than you have a vastly different understanding of what truth and political agendas are than most everyone. However, if you catch your breath and take the opportunity to read the discussion notes as to why edits were made then hopefully you will be better informed. If you don't understand then that's where discussion begins - I'm happy to oblige. But continuing to violate Wiki policy by summarily reverting all of my edits, not to mention being counterproductive and confrontational, does not resolve the issues at hand. Though it does make clear that you're unwilling to cooperate in good faith. 67.121.144.14 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's disingenuous - the disquiet at your edits have clearly been about removal of material that did not suit one PoV and not tidying up of the page. 67's edits have been misleading (describing removal of long standing text as returning the page to original, unreverts as reverts and named references as anonymous) and more recently edit storming in an apparent attempt to remove any adverse comment on her activity from the edit history. I am glad to see that eventually 67 has engaged other editors on the talk page, even if the comments are a more than a little on the hypocritical side.

So 67, if you genuinuely wish to improve this article, why not make a constructive start and list here the specific issues you have, along with suggestions for improved texts. I believe the page can be improved. SagePose 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read the history and what's posted here it's clear why my edits were made. A question for you to ask yourself is, if after due consideration you believe my edits were due to a particular point of view, then why are other "controversies" untouched? You haven't taken the time to read and understand my viewpoint so you cannot logically voice that you know what it is. I've been very clear. Although I appreciate you finally responding, I do not abide yet another summary reversion by your hand. Please take the time to act in good faith and discuss matters. 75.28.166.192 23:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

SagePose, Razmear, there's no credible or rational excuse for you continuing to summarily revert any and every edit I've made. Grammar corrections, link repairs, typos, etc. Have you gone mad? The only vandalizing going on here are your continued reversions. Please stop. 75.24.208.120 10:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mrs 75, please refer to specific cases of subediting being reverted, other than where it has been caught in the middle of the recent blanking episdodes by User:67.121.144.14/User:Dharmaburning. Personally, I would never knowingly revert typos, link or grammar corrections and would appreciate being shown where this has been the case rather than have my reputation darkened in this way. All recent reversions by me, User:zebra6 or User:Razmear have to my best knowledge been removing the undiscussed and PoV mass blanking of content. SagePose 10:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance of common wiki interface tools is no justification for wanton 'vandalism.' Might I suggest that you closely read the editing history of both the article page and of discussion page before making any further changes. These devices are not new and are readily available to everyone. Yet you've been obliterating content left and right without knowing why or attempting to find out why. You just keep cutting and pasting and summarily reverting whatever pleases you. Again, this is against wikipedia policy. And it's vandalism, pure and simple. Please cease your reversions. Dharmaburning 10:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the personal abuse. I have been using the wikipedia tools for several years. We can make this discussion more light than heat if you simply post the factual evidence, i.e. the diffs that you claim have been made to grammatical / typo / link correction changes.

This page has been continually defaced with mass blankings, sometimes leaving the formatting askew in haste to remove material that clearly is disagreeable to some PoV. When other editors, who have been working on this page for a while revert that and ask for discussion first, that is reasonable policy. Your absolute insistence on enforcing your mass blanking, repeatedly, breaking the 3RR rule and overriding other editors, without discussion, is regrettable. Some would also classify that as vandalism. SagePose 10:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies section

[edit] General Discussion

For additional information on this topic, see Controversy section, above.

Deron Beal recently replied on a 'point by point' basis to the critisisms contained in the 'controversies' section on the Freecycle 'UK Modsquad' email list... It would be good to integrate these responses into the article, although its not something i have the time or energy to do, it would be good if somebody who doesn't have a 'stake' in Freecycle could have a crack at this in an NPOV manner (I'm pro-Freecycle (it works for me..) so would probably be biased...)

NB. He posted lots of other stuff that replies to critics, but this specifically is relevant to the wikipedia article as it currently stands quercus robur 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is cut from a private Yahoo group. Do you have the permission of the poster or those quoted to put it here? Given current levels of paranoia within and without Freecycle about copyrights and trademarks, I've removed this for now. If you do have permission then feel free to put it back in and I, or another volunteer, will integrate it. If I do it, I'll check it out with some Freecycle moderator, and non-Freecycle, contacts first to iron out the PoV. SagePose 20:12 15 December 2005

Deron Beal posted his replys to the points on he UK modsquad list- I asked him via the modsquad if he'd mind if I posted this on wikipedia- his reply was that he personally didn't want to get involved with editing the wikipedia article due to not having time for such pursuits, but didn't actually specify outright one way or the other whether he gave permission for me to post his comments here- I just sort of assumed it was OK, but you may be right re. copyright issues, I'll try and get more specific permission....

cheers quercus robur 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Repeated reedits to the 'Deletion of Groups' section to include external links to a POV blog, which includes anonymously posted commentary and argument of questionable validity, in support of illogical claims is an illegitimate factual reference and should not be allowed. Those responsible argue further within History that the reference is supported by names included in the anonymous posts (1), (2) as reasonable identification of authority. This is equally disingenuous. Futher, it's argued that the linked article supports various other dubious claims not directly related to the content but rather a broad justification.

If you're referring to something specific please link to the specifics and not to a general POV article to paint random, baseless assertions with; providing no reasonable device with which to verify their veracity. These editors stated that there are other sources and are publicly available so then they are challenged to provide them during editing, not after the fact, or relent.

It is illuminating that two editors of this article SagePose and Zebra6 choose to create a self supporting pissing match over a single sentence that illogically supports a negative outcome for the subject of this article. Then after reediting the text and characterizing my reversion as 'dishonest', comes a demand that no further edits be made without discussion here yet themselves not taking advantage of it. This presents serious question of their motives for behaving in such a manner. If they would like to contribute something constructive I welcome it. Otherwise I respectfully ask that they cease this most obvious and ridiculous of games. --67.121.144.14 -- 17:50, February 1, 2007

Please leave the ad hominem attacks out. Insulting other editors is not helpful, not constructive. Requesting that edits move to the discussion page where there has been multiple contrary edits is usual wikipedia practice, not a game. Ironically the post-'demand' edits you speak of are reversions to remove your undiscussed changes - I have not noticed anyone else carrying out text edits. SagePose 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was very insulted and put off because you summarily edited my changes without discussion, and rereverted it several times. An insult not need be words. However, I've edited the above. 67.121.112.195 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the serious question of motive still stands. Ah well, if you must have the drama.

Summary edits without discussion is precisely why your changes have met with resistance. If you wish to make major change to a page which has been around for a while then expect to see some questioning and discussion. Chopping out large sections that you do not personally agree with is not a productive course. It would also seem reasonable that we use the last version before this edit storm as the base, and then talk about how we can improve from there. Can we leave the emotions to one side, go back to 18th Jan and talk about how we can make this article better? SagePose 00:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand resistance to change. But the very nature of Wikipedia is about change, and no one is important than another. It doesn't matter if the content existed for hours or years. What is important, however, is that we have a conversation and agree on the relevance, veracity and substantiation of what's posted here. But oddly enough, in a sea of change you summarily dismiss any and refuse to discuss anything but that fact something changed and it wasn't cleared by you. Again you've summarily reverted my edits for, what, the 15th time? It is counterproductive and indefensible.

Let's move forward. The subtopics below regarding the substantial changes are just juicy for your response. Dharmaburning 06:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that what is being posted as facts are not. Some editors are including as many links as they can to their own organisations or any web page that serves their purpose to make Freecycle look bad. But it is self referencial not fact. They dont care about Freecycle. They should not be editing this article. 216.103.255.18

I very seldom edit this article, because it would pose a conflict of interest. My last edit to the article, not counting the vandalism restores, was to change "non-TFN groups" to "other free recycling groups", which was done to improve the accuracy of the article. 216, please go though any of my edit history and you will see that I have not bothered to post anything anti-freecycle. I do link in the discussion page to facts that are documented at GreenRibbon.us, and if those facts make TFN look bad, then so be it. --Razmear 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of groups

This subsection removed from the Controversies section of the article because it poses no credible, or any for that matter, factual references; only posing as authoritative. This is not the goal of Wikipedia. In this current state the content is altogether useless for an encyclopedic article. 67.121.144.14 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There were some factual references in the original from a number of different sources outside of wikipedia. The degree of credibility might vary but they were substantive, included direct email quotes, and were from a number of former TFN leaders. If those references are not considered reliable enough, then just about any post from any individual on the web should be suspect and not used as a reference for any article. Zebra6 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding your point difficult to follow because I asked why someone hasn't provided references to justify this content and you say they exist somewhere but you're unwilling to provide them and argue that it wouldn't do any good because they can't be verified due to variable credibility. Say wuh? Perhaps I'm mistaken but something is either credible or not; there's little variance. If there is no verifiable reference then the assertions are nothing more than rumor and conjecture. Now, don't get me wrong; I know as well as you that groups were in fact deleted - that's not the issue. But we have to look at it from an outsiders perspective and we can't present it as fact without a reference point. If a credible reference cannot be provided then the content either should be 86'd or it should provide a disclaimer to that effect so folks can make up their own mind. I'm guessing there's a credible reference out there. Dharmaburning 06:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dismissing dissenters

Again there were some factual references in the original from a number of different sources outside of wikipedia. Much of this is documented publicly in the fcnext yahoo group Zebra6 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that link is about as useful as linking to google. If it's as well documented as you say then why not link to information pertinent to the content? Isn't there at least one primary reference you could provide? Folks will argue that it looks like you're either attempting to bias folks by dropping them on an opposing organization's website or you just can't be bothered. Either way it doesn't lend to a credible reference and weakens the wiki article so you'll have to repeatedly argue it again and again. Instead, why not just link to something relevant and be done with it? Dharmaburning 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralization

Again there were some factual references in the original from a number of different sources outside of wikipedia. Much of this is documented publicly in the fcnext yahoo group and in BusinessWeek and Grist articles and follow up comments. Zebra6 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for a kind and reasoned response. This begs the question, if these are publicly available, credible references, instead of just pitching an argument and summarily reverting any edits made, then why not provide the referenced to substantiate the content? Clearly you know the content of these references better than I, and especially better than someone doing a google search and entering here with no knowledge at all, then why aren't they provided? That visitor is who I think this text must be geared toward.

The difficulty that we're facing here at this point is that this opportunity has never been taken. Yet again another opportunity presented itself and instead of how 'the Wiki way' instructs (paraphrased)...'don't revert editing, improve upon it.'... that's still not happening. Reading back on some of the discussion, it just seems to be status quo for you guys and everyone wants to agonize over every minor detail but it's not getting it done. There's plenty of discussion here from the last two years voicing that there's extraordinary problems with the controversies text, yet very little with the presentation has changed. I've read that lots of folks behind the scenes made agreements to what this section should contain but nobody else can see that and you can't expect they will. Someone just wants to know about the organization, we can't require them to first understand the histrionic plight of opposing sides. In the 15 seconds they'll spend skimming it, they just don't care. Let the facts speak for themselves. But that can't happen here if everyone keeps the information to themselves. It's got to be made readily available. Dharmaburning 08:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

This subsection removed from the Controversies section of the article because it provides no redeeming value beyond tit-for-tat argument, finger pointing and building prejudice against the subject of the article. 67.121.144.14 05:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This was well documented by posts in the fcnext yahoo group and looking at archive.org and freecycle.org. It is a controversey because TFN has religiously enforced its own copyright while freely abusing the copyrights of others. That seems quite hypocritical to many and thus is a controversey as well. Zebra6 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, that link is about as useful as linking to google. If it's as well documented as you say then why not link to information pertinent to the content? Isn't there at least one primary reference you could provide? Folks will argue that it looks like you're either attempting to bias folks by dropping them on an opposing organization's website or you just can't be bothered. Either way it doesn't lend to a credible reference and weakens the wiki article so you'll have to repeatedly argue it again and again. Instead, why not just link to something relevant and be done with it? Dharmaburning 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of funds

This subsection removed from the Controversies section of the article because it provides no redeeming value beyond whining about something that's unjustified. News report, annual report, schedule announcement about the website launch, anything illustrating the use of funds? None. This passage requires substantiation or it's just rumor and conjecture, altogether useless for an encyclopedic article. Dharmaburning 09:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Documentation regarding Use of funds for the June 2005 to June 2006 fiscal year has been located by a user of the FCNext group, and I have copied that data so that that it is easily available to the public. A breakdown of expenses, including Beal's $45,000 salary can be found at http://greenribbon.us/files/TFN2006_Annual_Report/page3.jpg to see all pages of the report just go to: http://greenribbon.us/files/TFN2006_Annual_Report/

--Razmear 19:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's awesome but a little tough to read. Though I'm thinking an image of a scanned copy of a document of unidentifiable origin hosted on the greenribbon site has very little credibility. In fact I'd expect that many would argue it's veracity simply because it's hosted there - you know how it goes. Since we're dealing with a nonprofit, aren't their figures readily available through a public source? Dharmaburning 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The documents were copied from a public information source at: http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/names-detail.p?name-id=11229014&type=CORPORATION

However due to the length of the link and it requiring additional clicks to view, I posted them to GreenRibbon for ease of access.

--Razmear 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. You can also download better versions, up to 200% enlarged, which is about normal size. Even better, folks can see the company's overall financial history. I can't figure why you wouldn't want to link to that. So that's good, the finances are covered but what about the part about the website launch schedule slipping? I haven't seen anything about that. Dharmaburning 07:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

re: website slippage, the fact that it still does not exist should be evidence enough of the fact. Deron Beal's own words promising a new website back in 2005 should be evidence enough. Sorry I don't have pointers handy to every word he has ever typed, and if I did have a posting from him, you would use the same arguments you are using about FCNext to disqualify it, so why bother. --Razmear 07:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I think your take is a bit dramatically grim and a bit counterproductive considering our polite conversation. But yeah, as for the FCNext thing, if you planned on a nonspecific link, sure I'd mention it. It's not useful. And nobody has asked you to document Deron's every word or suggested anything even close. I simply asked what's up with the website development because I haven't seen anything about it and have no idea what the schedule is, was, or will be. Since this part of the content is so specific about when it's happening I figure there's an announcement or something from somewhere. If you don't know it's ok to leave it to someone else. I just thought I'd, you know, ask a question 'cause we were on a roll. Dharmaburning 09:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As a controversy this is again reasonably well documented in Grist articles, follow up comments, and elsewhere. Many have taken issue with how TFN has used its funding. As a recycling organization it should practice "reduce, reuse, recycle" itself. There is no denying that this controversy exists and is an issue with many inside (but mostly now outside) of TFN. Zebra6 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that you keep referring to the anonymous comments to the article as the reference. Problem is that people will mistakenly believe those are a reasonable and credible reference. They're nothing of the sort. Nor is any other anonymous comments posted to an article, be it grist, MSN, Wall Street Journal or a forum on Craigslist. But nobody verifies what's posted anonymously and anyone using any name can do it. And there's been discussion on these obvious facts before so I'm curious why it's coming up again. In fact it's very obvious on both sides of this controversy, that comments posted on that Grist article are very heavily biased, propaganda or both. The Grist article itself is cool. But if there aren't credible references to this content then I can't see how in good conscience we can allow it to be included in an arcticle of fact - it would be as much an insult to the public as it is a disservice. Dharmaburning 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) edited to clarify Dharmaburning 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Discussion

WTF!!! After all the talk about you deleting content from the article, you took out another section that did not suit your personal POV of what this article should contain??? Why don't you just delete the whole damn thing, after all it only took us about 2 years to come to a consensus on the current version, which involved folks from both within and outside of TFN, but your so freaking special that you can just come in and gut the thing because you don't like what it says, then you piss and moan that we won't debate everything thats been debated in the past to get to this point, after you trash the whole article. You are destroying the work of many people on a personal mission to make your point of view reality. If you want to publish your opinions, make yourself a website and go nuts, but stop destroying the work of others! You are the classic definition of a VANDAL and your an arrogant one at that. --Razmear 15:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

For additional information on this topic, see Controversy section, above.

[edit] Office

I have locked the page as Office for 24 hours, pending the investigation of certain claims. Please bear with this. There are over 1 million other articles that can be improved. Dannyisme 20:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

One million, one hundred twenty-one thousand, six hundred fifty three articles, in fact. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What claims? You know, I think people would be a lot more accepting of the Office policy if you'd really tell us what's going on instead of giving us the "stay away" bullshit. Meneth 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And now we begin to see the Achilles Heel of the Wikipedia concept. Screwballs with their own personal axe to grind try to further their agenda by twisting the facts or spinning them their way.

I'm concerned that '24 hours' is currently 5 days and counting... quercus robur 08:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they are following the model of the TV show "24" where you have to wait a week for each hour to elapse? I think the truth is, Wikipedia has got their tit in a wringer because they allow anyone to post whatever the hell they want. And, they are going to get their butts in legal trouble real soon.

I hope that isn't a legal threat to the Wikimedia foundation... thats usually grounds for blocking. 24.50.211.226 12:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that since this is taking so long that this page should be taken out of "office" and have the label changed to "This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.)"

I'm concerned that '24 hours' is now 12 days and counting quercus robur 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV and other Problems with this article

Overall, the entry has a cultural bias: it is obviously written by someone in UK English and not American English. This needs to be neutralized. (Or should I say "neutralised"?)

1 The first sentence is clumsy: "The Freecycle Network (often abbreviated TFN) is a corporation registered as a non-profit", would better read: "The Freecycle Network is a non-profit corporation registered in Arizona."

2 including the abbreviation TFN is just juvenile and is there only to allow the editor to avoid typing "The Freecycle Network

3 “Background”: "It has since grown, reaching into 50 countries and involving over a million members in over 3,000 groups worldwide." contradicts what is written in the first paragraph.

4 “Background”: "On April 2004, it incorporated under Arizona law, although it has not yet achieved 501(c)(3) status." is a clumsy sentence. 501(c)(3) status has nothing to do with incorporation in Arizona. 501(c)(3) status is a tax classification of the Internal Revenue Service. Also the phrase "although it has not yet achieved" is a clause that is not grammatically or contextually linked to any previously given information. It is introducing a new fact irrelevant to its state registration. Tax status should be a separate sentence or idea if it is even relevant to the average Wikipedia user at all.

5 “Background”: In my opinion, the inclusion of the board of director's names and relationships here is only meant to "out" them and attempt to intimate that the org is run by "insiders" for nefarious purposes. The simple link to the board of directors is adequate.

6 “Background”: "TFN plan to move..." is a ridiculous grammatical error

7 “Background”: The discussion of "centralisation" plans is outdated. I am of the opinion that "early 2006" has now passed and it hasn't happened. Better to say "The Freecycle Network is exploring plans to host local groups on their own proprietary platform."

8 Overall, the "Controversies” section is just plain silly. It gets into very topical and date-sensitive accounting and other minutiae that really have very little relevance to someone trying to find out what Freecycle is all about. This needs to be radically simplified. Notable is that the "Controversies" section absurdly out sizes the main definitional entry. That in itself should be a large flaming red flag that the entry is not NPOV and demonstrates an organized campaign to discredit and smear Freecycle.

9 “Corporate Sponsorship” entry: "Further criticism was provoked by a decision to take paid Google ads on the Freecycle web site..." There are not, and never have been paid Google on the main Freecycle web site. There are paid Google ads on the Freecycle Finder Tool which is a separate, optional tool usable only by Freecycle group members. This needs to be clarified.

10 “Corporate Sponsorship” entry: "contrary to the initial stated principles" What initial stated principles? This refers to something that has no documentation.

11 “Corporate Sponsorship” entry: "Beal's green ambassador role for WMI" The link that this points to had nothing to do with anything that mentions the phrase: "green ambassador".

12 "Use of Funds" entry refers to a date that has passed as being in the future.

13 "Use of Funds” entry also discusses the corporate board structure. This doesn't make sense.

14 "Trademark" entry indicates that Beal has shut down groups. This is untrue. Freecycle has never shut down groups. It has only asked that they sever their connection with Freecycle and cease using the Freecycle mark. Freecycle does not have the ability to shut down a Yahoo Group, only Yahoo can do that.

14 Trademark" entry: references to freecycle.com by Beal were obviously hypothetical and attempts to create irony are obviously not NPOV. References to domain squatters to prove a point are foolish. Does the entry on wikipedia.org make note of wikipedia.ws?

15 Trademark" entry: use of the terms freecycling, freecyclers, etc. is part of an organized campaign to genericize and dilute the trademark Freecycle. Supporting documentation can be found at the campaign HQ: http://greenribbon.us/

16 The remainder of the "Trademark" entry is a shill for Tim Oey who has filed lawsuits trying to strip the trademark protection from The Freecycle Network. This lawsuit is ongoing and this information is not NPOV.

17 "Centralization" entry: So what? Is there any usuable information there? It refers to a controversy about a vaporous plan to move to a new system. Maybe it should say something like: "The Freecycle Network is exploring plans to host local groups on their own proprietary platform, but nothing of substance has materialized and some are concerned about the possible changes."

18 "Centralization" entry: in reference to "The concentration of infrastructure..." to make it more NPOV it should say something like "As the organization has grown, the day to day policy and decision making process has been concentrated more in the hands of a few department heads. In the embryonic stages of its growth, input was provided on even the smallest details by a wider body of members." The "modsquad" "HUB" and "OIDG" are technical, proprietary terms of The Freecycle Network and would require in-depth explanations that would be lost on the average Wikipedia user.

19 "Centralization" entry: in reference to the sentence: "Former colleagues of Beal cite his behavior as an example of so-called founderitis" It seems quite childish to include name-calling by former volunteers in an "encyclopedia" article.

20 "Removed Groups" entry: This issue has been adequately addressed by the paragraph on "Trademark".

21 "Removed Groups" entry: "As of February 2006" has formatting issues

22 "Removed Groups" entry: Freesharing and [10] links don't jibe. [10] points to an outside link to something called sharingisgiving

23 "Removed Groups" entry: "As of February 2006" sentence makes unsubstantiated charges

24 "Dismissing dissenters" entry: has laughably poor grammar and is a horribly long run-on sentence.

25 "Dismissing dissenters" entry: is not NPOV and is somewhat bizarre. Is it truly controversial that an organization might dismiss volunteers with whom it is at cross-purposes with? Also see my comments on Freecycle closing groups under "Trademark"

26 "External Links": contains almost exclusively news stories. Until I posted a few positive news stories, it contained exclusively negative news stories. Definitley not NPOV. Also not the proper Wikipedia use of the "External Links" module.

27 "External Links": On entry says "Contains copies of court filings against Freecycle "Where are the links to lawsuits filed by Freecycle? Another obvious NPOV violation. Also, does Wikipedia want to be in the business of publishing blow by blow lawsuits and countersuits as they occur?

28 "The Freecycle Network structure": "The Freecycle Rag" is nitwitted. It doesn't have anything to do with the corporate structure and was obviously posted by a disgruntled former moderator from Brevard County Florida. It's also commercial promotion for some recording artist and a thinly veiled attempt to further the campaign to genericize the trademarked term Freecycle. This entry is also shoddily written.

29 "References": the majority of links in this section are simply duplicates of those in the section above it. Needs consolidation

30 "References": the "Freecycle Statement of Centralization Plans" link does not link to a document of that name.

Some comments on the unsigned point by point above:

2. TFN is a common abbriviation of The Freecycle Network and is worthy of the sentance used to say so.

14. TFN has through it's contacts with Yahoo caused several hundred Free Recycling groups to be shut down. Your statement is true that Deron did not flip the switch, but TFN did make the call to the person who did delete the groups. Symantics.

27. GreenRibbon.us contains copies of both the lawsuits against TFN and the suits filed by TFN against Tim Oey. The description for the link should be updated to reflect this.

--Razmear 04:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2. OK - I can live with the abbreviation

14. It should be noted that all groups deleted by Yahoo had over two weeks to remove the Freecycle mark from their pages and received two notices from Freecycle.org and one from Yahoo's trademark department.

27. GreenRibbon.us is a page in violation of U.S. Trademark law and is a source for rants against Freecycle. Link just probably shouldn't be there.

(above person, please sign your posts, ok)

Anyways, we're OK with #2, however your rebuttal on #14 is not accurate. Just this past week the groups of an FCNext moderator were taken down without any warning and her IDs were killed by Yahoo. Even her non-free-recycling groups were killed off by this latest attack. 27. Please explain how GreenRibbon.us is in violation of US trademark law. The Freecycle logo is not used, and trademark law specifically protects using the name of an organization or company to spread information about that company. By your logic anyone saying I like Coke, or I don't like Pepsi on a website would be in violation of US TradeMark law, which obviously is not the case.

--Razmear 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bold textRazmear- you may not legally use a trademarked name that belongs to someone else in your logo. That's why GreenRibbon is in violation of U.S. and EU trademark laws.

I can't answer for the actions of Yahoo. They do whatever they want. It's their game. How do you know this person is telling you the truth?

[edit] Alleged 'cultural bias'

Overall, the entry has a cultural bias: it is obviously written by someone in UK English and not American English. This needs to be neutralized. (Or should I say "neutralised"?)

How is 'American English' more 'neutral' than 'UK English'? If anything its surely the other way round as UK English is the 'original' and has been around alot longer. It's a bit scarey if the implication, as I'm currently reading this, is that US cultural hegemony is now considered to be taken for granted as 'neutral'.

And surely this is not one of the reasons that this article has been declared totally out of bounds to all but one priviledged sysop?? If so Wikipedia is indeed on a very slippery slope downwards.

quercus robur 09:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that it was a an unjustified bash of the Limeys. However, the article should be consistent in it's use of language. Either UK English or American English. Freecycle originated in the US so maybe that's what should be used. Note: this is an unsigned comment

Yeah - there is some guideline (don't have time to dig up a wikilink) which says that where the subject of an article has a particular connection to either the US or the UK, it should be in that country's 'version' of English. Cynical 16:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hardly a reason to justify setting this article as out of bounds to all but one wiki-editor for almost two weeks, with no sign of a resolution or accountability despite the fine words on the 'office' page that state otherwise. quercus robur 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A policy of homogenic use of language would lock out a lot of editors. Mind you that a lot of users/contributers of en.wikipedia have another first (and perhaps second) language and would have a hard time distinguishing between UK English and American English. 194.255.112.30 07:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection request

This article has been write-protected for over 2 and 1/2 weeks. When will the WP:OFFICE sanctions be lifted? Silensor 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. Probably best to think in terms of "eventualy" and "in time". I doubt it helps that the foundation is probably a bit busy right now.Geni 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the {{editprotected}} tag. If it's protected under WP:OFFICE it really should not be edited at all. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it say "If you are able to edit this page, please discuss all changes and additions on the talk page first"

[edit] Trademark - generic term & controversies

The following section has been removed by anonymous users within the last couple of weeks:

Critics point out that it could equally be protected from corporate abuse by establishment as a generic term. Ironically, Beal himself initially used freecycle as a generic term, and early documents make frequent references to 'freecyclers' and 'freecycling', terms which now trigger letters from the Freecycle trademark protection team.

This is extremely relevant to, and bears directly upon, the current lawsuit.

Further criticism has been attracted by the friends-and-family board structure, which prevents The Freecycle Network from full registration as a non-profit and efficient use of donations. Beal defends this as a necessary interim measure whilst the organization grows rapidly.

I do think this is also of relevance. We don't hide L Ron Hubbard's influence upon the Scientology movement, do we?

Finally I'm concerned that the external links to websites discussing the lawsuit have been removed. Was there any discussion about this? Most of the edits since the page was unprotected seem to be either anonymous or blatantly NPoV. I propose reverting them in a few days, should there be no discussion about this. --Stroller 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the need to revert. I was surprised to see how much this article has shrunk since I last viewed it. Also there is a new Grist article which slams TFN for it's anti-free speech actions of late. It can be found at: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/26/111526/801

--Razmear 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF? Is this a propaganda page to try and influence a lawsuit currently in litigation? I guess Colbert is right. Wikipedia is nothing but "wikiality," the reality that exists if you make something up and enough people agree with you. - Anonymous

editted controversies - to update to trademark section to clarify trademark dispute is US and that the Trademark is accepted and udisputed in the UK and the EU. - to update the "dissenters" section - making clear it was moderators who were dismissed - not members - and including some of TFN's stated reason for these actions. have done so carefully to try to be faithful to both sides in this dispute. It is important that this dispute is documented - but that the page is not seen as an attack against TFN Topmark 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo origin.

The following was found i the the controversies section:- Logo Origin. It has been recently discovered that the Freecycle logo[5] consists of clip art images [6] [7] that are copyrighted by Microsoft and are specifically prohibited from being used in a corporate logo or for commercial purposes [8]. This revelation will likely impact both the trademark approval process and the pending lawsuits.

I don't think this section under controversies should be allowed to remain in this article as is without further referencing.

"It has recently been discovered" - by whom? , by the author of this piece? (disallowed as publishing unreferenced results of original research - more journalistic than encyclopedic). If discovered by someone else this should be referenced. There is no reference to any comment by Microsoft (only a link to a standard license) about this alleged infringement of their copyright or by the Freeecycle organisation as to whether they actually used the clipart or had sought permission for use of the clipart The sentence beginning "This revelation is likely.." is simply opinion. Without prejudice to the truth of this section it appears to be based on unsupported hearsay and should not remain in a wikipedia aricle (if it is proven untrue, worse still it could be construed as libellous)

It could be that this is unreferenced "evidence" garnered for the lawsuits by one of the parties and published here for to support their case- and in that case it is definitely inappropriate to publish here I have deleted the section but would appreciate someone with more knowledge of things wikipedia (i am a bit of a newbie here) stepping in and giving some guidance on this issue that seems fraught with difficulties.

Or perhaps the orginal author can fix the section once it has been made a bit more watertight and in line with wikipedia guidelines? Forgive me if i get this wrong.Topmark 12:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The discovery was made by several members of the group FCNext who looked thru thousands of images to locate the origin of the Guitar and Bicycle. The supporting evidence, being the link to the pictures used in the logo on Microsoft's website, and the EULA for those images were presented to back up the statement. The EULA specifically states the images can not be used for a corporate image, and therefore can not be turned into a trademarked image for the TFN logo. The statement "this revelation is likely..." is admittedly not in an encyclopedic context and should have been the only portion removed. --Razmear 00:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this section still remains innaccurate as it asserts that the logo's are copywrited by Microsoft. Microsoft does not in fact hold the copyright to these images, but rather distribute them under license. I have been unable yet to ascertain yet which third party holds the copywrite or whether they have any agreement with Freecycle. The Eula simply states "Microsoft licenses some of the artwork from third parties and therefore cannot grant permission for you to redistribute the artwork." Allegations made on web forums that are not yet proven cannot be regarded as encyclopaedic While reporting controversies and lawsuits on Wikipedia is appropriate - it surely can't be appropriate to use these pages to try to generarate a controversy? Given that neither Microsoft, the origininal Artists, nor the Freecycle Network have taken any reportable action on this issue - readers could easily conclude this to be the intention of this posting. It is simply POV of the author that this constitutes a "controvery" and Wikipedia ought not to be used as a campagn website or ideas forum. Given that the controversies section is still IMHO opinion rather bloated in relation to the overall length of the Freecycle article it is my opinion that this section should be removed until there is something more solid to report.Topmark 13:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact-checked the copyright. The company concerned is NVTech not Microsoft, and it appears that NVTech legal have begun to take action - I've seen good proof for the first statement but only have hearsay for the second. Much of the material on the logo copyright I removed a week or so ago, as much for the quality of the ranting as for the lack of proof. BTW, not to be picky but the word is "copyright".

Your claim this page "generates" controversy is IMHO itself PoV and pointless; can we stick to the facts and remove items because they are untrue or have insufficient proof. Likewise for the bizarre concept that there must be some sort of affirmative action for the up-side of Freecycle. The pros and cons should reflect the facts and not some quota system. The perceived lack of balance is due to unreporting of Freecycle successes, and curious that visitors with agendas have added or subtracted to controversies and not to the successes. I've recently added a separate section for successes as a start for that, and suggest improving it be a next item of work for this page. SagePose 21:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regiving

Why is there mention of the term "regiving" in this article. There is no such word and it is not mentioned anywhere on freecycle.org (the main TFN website, at least as of 1/12/2006). It seems to be a new invention of some of the authors of this article and not something that actually exists or that TFN actually uses.Zebra6 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ii's abundantly clear why the term is used. Wikipedia cannot use the original term 'freecycling'. TFN themselves have stopped using the term, take action against anyone who does, and are also moving away from recycling. Perhaps a more sensible debate would be between regifting and regiving, neither of which are especially elegant constructions. SagePose 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)SagePose

What is abundantly clear is that you started the Wikipedia article Regiving and this has nothing to do with Wikipedia able or not to use any particular term because the word Freecycle is liberally used throughout the article. What the fuck gose here. There has never been any discussion of "regifting" for the efforts of the Freecycle community. 67.121.144.14 02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the emails of Deron Beal, the founder of Freecycle, who uses the term 'regifting' in his recent (late 2006 / early 2007 emails); I've been forwarded those by people I trust. They are also available to any of the 3000 members of the Freecycle 'modsquad' group to confirm. Yes, I created the 'Regiving' article, my name is against it so hardly been hiding anything. I did this (see note from Jan 2006) to depoliticize this, respecting TFN's legal right to the work, replacing the old 'freecycling' group with the term I had seen used in several other groups looking for a word they could use without being sued. 'Free recycling' is now becoming more popular, although less accurate since freecycle type groups are generally practicing reuse rather than recycling. And 67, can we leave out the drama of ongoing negative campaigns and stick to the facts? Fortunately I've had these attacks from both pro and anti TFN people, so must be doing something right around the PoV :-) SagePose 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have these emails but the general public does not, emails are private communications, and lastly haven't been referenced in the content so there's no way for anyone coming to the page to clearly understand the relevance. Regifting is presented here as an authoritative fact when it is not at all. Besides, regifting commonly refers giving someone a gift you received as a gift; as in the case of an unwanted gift. It has nothing to do with recycling. Additionally, in none of the available materials from freecycle, news article, broadcast transcripts, etc, is 'regifting' mentioned or otherwise generally or specifically associated with Freecycle. If there is such a reference, please provide it or relent on insisting on its inclusion. Dharmaburning 08:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dharamburning, can you honestly state that you have no access to the link posted? You know this was not a private email but rather a post to a forum of 3000 people, of which you may well be a member. Furthermore, the freecycle.org website clearly refers to it as a "gifting network". Is your objection solely to the "re-" prefix? It may also have escaped your notice that the reason people are using "regifting", "regiving" and "free recycling" is precisely because they are generic terms that can be applied to any organization which passes the duck test. Whether or not [flickr.com] claims to be a "Web 2.0" company is immaterial since it fits the common definition of that term. SagePose 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to put a name to your number, Dharmaburning. The emails I refer to were not private emails but posts in closed forums. I have been provided with references, which can be validated by any of the 3000 members of modsquad, although finding a source willing to reveal their identity is another matter.

However, Deron has personally cleared some phrases to be used in public press releases, so these should be reproducible here:

"We are the largest re-gifting network and regifting website in the world. Reporters are looking all over for regifting stories."

"As an organization overall, based on extrapolated numbers from a study funded by the State of Iowa, we just past [sic: passed] the 100 million pound mark for weight of items being kept out of landfills, and being regifted, for this year alone. Just in time for x-mas we passed this momentous number."

Both of these statements by Deron Beal are from Dec 22nd 2005 [6]

As it happens, Dharmaburning, I rather agree with you that regifting is an odd word, more Seinfeld than good English grammar. However, neither is recycling a great term. Check out how the terms "reuse" and "recycle" are distinguished by environmental managers and groups. In this case with 'regifting' your argument is really with Deron Beal rather than my humble self or Wikipedia. SagePose 10:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no public access to that reference so I cannot tell what you're talking about. The same problem exists for random folks. Find a public reference then you're golden. This is the only kind of thing we can rightly expect as substantiation, something that the average Joe can verify for themselves. Otherwise the content is just nonsense garbage. However, it's still not regiving and there's no need for your disambiguation linking for either because there's no similarities. Though I'd expect inclusion in related topics and such would prove useful. Dharmaburning 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of either public or private references to "regiving" within TFN or from Deron Beal. Regiving also does not fit that well within freecycling because, regiving means to give again and many things that are freecycled were not given in the first place. Regifting suffers from the same problem although there are references to regifting within TFN's official web site at freecycle.org -- go ahead and google "regifting site:freecycle.org". Recycling is closest to freecycling but is still not specific enough. Freecycling seems to be the best word to describe this common and popular activity. Zebra6 06:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Free recycling is the appropriate generic term for Freecycling, although freecycling is pretty much generic in itself as it's an obvious morph of the two words. Freecycling would be commonly used if TFN didn't threaten to shut down or sue anyone who used it. I agree that regiving and regifting are not accurate descriptions of the activity. Reuse is an appropriate term however. --Razmear 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree, just up to the point you say 'Freecycling seems to be the best word to describe this common and popular activity.' It may seem that way from the bubble of the freecycle community but it's far from the reality. I can gaurantee you if you polled 100 people in 100 cities across America, you'd be extraodinarily lucky to find even 1 in 1,000 that realizes freecycle exists. Dharmaburning 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What SagePose says is untrue. Wikipedia can use the term 'freecycling' -- really anyone can. That is the nature of words, anyone can use them. TFN might like to stop using the term but they continue to use it in many TFN groups and even on freecycle.org (just do a google search for "freecycling site:freecycle.org" to find plenty of generic uses on freecycle.org or google "freecycling" by itself to find thousands more). There is really nothing that TFN can do to Wikipedia to prevent people from using the term other than scare (or persuade) people like SagePose to do what TFN wants. Even Jimmy Wales the founder of Wikipedia supports allowing people to have free speech, so why not drop trying to invent yet another word or using inelegant constructions (which SagePose admits to) and use the one that is quite popular and works best? Freecycling is a wonderful thing, just like recycling, and it deserves to be even more popular. Zebra6 07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I got pretty deep into this discussion before I finally realized, triggered by the debate over inappropriate terminology in this section:

Recycle means to break something down to raw materials to be used in making new items, for example recycling aluminum cans and glass bottles.
Reuse means to keep an item intact and merely change owners, for example donating old computers to middle schools so they don't have to buy new computers which they can't afford.

Accordingly I hereby express the opinion that "freecycling" and similar words are wrong, misnomers, since they use a form of the word "recycling" to really mean a form of reusing. Accordingly I hereby claim the proper generic term is "free re-using" or "free re-use" depending on grammatical use, and I hereby coin the word "freeuse" as an overlap-contraction of "free" and "re-use":

free
 re-use

and all grammatical variations of it such as "freeus[ing/er/etc.]", and I claim it as my personal trademark, all rights reserved, unless and until somebody can show that somebody previously coined the same word and posted some public evidence of such coinage. I then intend to license use of my newly-coined trademark to any decent organization that helps further such activity. -- But first I'd better do a Google search on the term ... ouch, somebody thought of it before me: FUCK YOU!! My only access to the net is VT100 dialup through Unix shell to run lynx, which is text only. You won't let me post a URL because I can't see the image in the captcha box. FUCK YOU!! So I'll distort the URL to bypass your stupid idea of a spam filter that discriminates against low-income people such as myself: leftbrocket href equal dquote http colon slash slash www.allsitesusa.com slash FreeUse-Home.html dquote rightbrocket FreeUse for all your free cycling-freesharing-freegiving-freeusing needs leftbrocket slash a rightbrocket NOW WILL YOU LET ME POST HERE?? NeverMind -- Gilda Radner^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hRobert Maas -- tinyurl.com/uh3t

[edit] Protection

I protected this page so tempers can cool a bit. Hopefully this will lead to calm discussion. The dispute resolution guidelines might be of assistance. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: It can be hard to follow discussion threads when new comments are thrown back into older areas of the discussion. Is that normal in wikipedia? Or are new discussion areas usually added to the end of the discussion page as major editing issues are revisited in a new light? Zebra6 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note this page is miscategorised. It does not belong in Category:waste instead either in the subcategories Category:recycling industry or Category:Waste organisations. --Alex 13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't be catetorized as "waste". But it shouldn't be categorized as "recycling" either. See my distinction between "recycling" and "reusing" in the previous section of discussion. -- Robert Maas -- tinyurl.com/uh3t

I removed this page from my Watchlist a while back, but just thought I'd drop by and see how the article was doing, and noted that this page has been protected since 3 Feb 2007, its now 17th March 2007, perhaps its time to unprotect? Or are the issues still ongoing? It doesn't seem very good for the page to have been in limboland for this long however... quercus robur 11:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General tone of this article

The general tone of the "background" section reads like marketing/pr copy. It's not encyclopedic writing at all, loaded with speculation and POV. TheQuandry 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, what was there previously was so dry and sparse of detail that it was completely useless. If you can come up with better wording that relays their develop in a less PR copy manner, go for it. Dharmaburning 09:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwanders^Talk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)