Talk:Craig Newmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article content errors[edit]

Folks, I'd like to correct one error on the page, then articulate very briefly what I do at craigslist, and include one video link:

I'm not politically active, as was on Newsome's transition team, not anything else.

At craigslist, my full time job is customer service, dealing a lot with spammers and scammers.

Interview on Public TV/KQED Josh Kornbluth show:

Cnewmark 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've incorporated these suggestions, which checked out 100%. I also removed content that didn't belong in the article, but would be better in craigslist. Do you have any other ideas for improvement? —EncMstr 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciated! If it's valuable, I'm involved in a small way with Sunlight Foundation, responsible for and anti-corruption tools, and also OneVoice, a peace group comprised of thousands of moderates in Palestine and Israel. is that useful?
Cnewmark 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Those might be worthy additions: How are you involved with them? Any links to sources? —EncMstr 21:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm started to get involved with groups that work quietly, enlisting citizens to make things happen. My primary contribution is getting the word out, but secondarily, I advise regarding online community. Here're some links for some of those groups, along with articles that might be valuable and/or entertaining. Let me know if that's too much; there's lots more around —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cnewmark (talkcontribs) 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Cnewmark 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, looks like a number of links to press were removed, but I don't see any history on that or discussion.

Can someone let me know what happened? thanks! Cnewmark 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They were removed by this edit which was not explained in the edit summary. However, that editor has a history of cleaning up link spam, so that's probably the explanation. —EncMstr 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The links are valid; how does one get this corrected? thanks! Cnewmark 05:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the correction!

Would it be appropriate to suggest adding links to clips of my stuff on the Colbert and Stewart shows? Cnewmark 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cnewmark (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC) folks, the Wikimedia folks have asked me to ask you to add the following to this page. (I'm playing by the rules) I've been named as a "nerd-in-residence" by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, seriously. That might make me officially the biggest nerd in the world. I'm still a customer service rep at craigslist

in the first citation, you need to click on Craig Newmark to see the bio

citations: [1] [2]

Cnewmark (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

folks, I need a hand, the Forbes article wildly exaggerates rumors of my net worth, and it causes problems including physical safety.
Granted, there's no reliable source for this at all. Would it be ethical for me to suggest someone remove it. Thanks! /Craig (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying Forbes is not a reliable source? I think it is generally trusted as one even here at Wikipedia. Any idea how they got their information? Seems like someone would have had their lawyer slap them around if that was a frequent enough problem.
Do you know of another source which is somewhat reputable and contradicts Forbes? —EncMstr (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to delay a response; working with sensitive info, and it will be months before I can go further. A new article by danah boyd addresses the broad issue, in the interim:[3] The only source of actual info of my net worth is me, and I don't know how to suitably document that, suggestions appreciated, and thanks for your forbearance. Craignewmark (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've been speaking with senior Wikipedians, we've discussed that I've been widely saying that "Wikipedia is where facts go to live" and yet, the estimate of my net worth is very wrong. Frankly, correcting mistakes is part of my ongoing recovery from some years of ongoing unfortunate fake news attacks, so...

I'd like to point out that the figure is not reliably sourced, the citation asserts a value with no evidence behind it. I believe there is no close to accurate information published on my net worth, nor anything accurate relating to craigslist revenue.

Given the lack of reliable sourcing, I'd like that item removed.

Thanks! Cnewmark (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should not include that (now 6-year-old) estimate absent some better sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I've update the Forbes reference with a new estimate of net worth based on Craigslist valuation. Nicmart (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! and I'm hoping it's appropriate to suggest removing the other reference?

(It's been suggested that I suggest updating the page to make it relatively current and complete, and will include some citations here. Please tell me to avoid that if it's contrary to Wikipedia culture and ethics.)

Cnewmark (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, following up with my commitment, here are a small subset of references. Please do push back if I cross a line, and I'll share that with the wikipedian suggesting this. Thanks!

Cnewmark (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I've seen some major slapdowns for far less subtle attempts to influence personal entries than this. Nicmart (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Disclosure, and the Ethics of Funding Non-profit journalism[edit]

Hey, after discussion with WMF folks, and more, I figured I should disclose the following, in respect.

In addition to founding craigslist, I've been focused on philanthropy via, specifically supporting nonprofit journalism, which I feel includes Wikipedia. I just posted regarding the ethics of funding nonprofit journalism, and thought this would be relevant here.

Further, given my heavy Wikipedia existing and future grants, I've decided I need to disclose everything I do that's related, limited only by the do no harm principle. That is, I'll be subjecting everything I do re Wikipedia to public scrutiny, and this is the start of that.


Craignewmark (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

corrected user name, per request: Cnewmark (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


It would seem that someone has decided that all matters related to controversial activities should be removed. Not surprising considering the status of Mr. Newmark with Wikimedia, but all the sources are good and there is no “spam” put up by me. Nicmart (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

By "spam" I meant the various mentions of charitable and/or political donations that Mr. Newmark would apparently like to see in the article (see above) but that were not supported by secondary sources, or the "Nerd in residence" award for which the only source was the organization bestowing the award. I have no idea who put it up but I don't think any of that belongs. Since you mention "all matters related to controversial activities", I assume that removal isn't what you're unhappy with, but rather the sentences from the career section about complaints against Craigslist. There were a couple of problems with those sentences:
  • The source was not a reliable third-party source but a press release by Craigslist's CEO.
  • The source did not mention prostitution at all, and sex trafficking only in the context of "cynical misuse of a cause as important as human trafficking as a pretense for imposing one’s own flavor of religious morality". It thus did not in any way confirm the content it was cited for.
  • Neither the content I removed nor the source mention Newmark; thus the "prostitution on Craigslist" issue might be relevant to our article on Craigslist (if we had better sources, that is), but unless reliable sources explicitly connect Newmark with this controversy, it doesn't belong here.
So in summary we had "controversial" content that was simultaneously irrelevant to Newman and not supported by the reference which wasn't a reliable source anyway. That's a violation of WP:BLP and arguably a WP:COATRACK. For these reasons, particularly for trying to associate a living person with sex trafficking without even the shred of a reliable source backing up the connection, I'll again remove that content. I'll also again remove the spam and fix the reference that you broke again when you undid my edit. Huon (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
What I wrote above goes for User:Cnewmark too, of course: The content that was just re-added was not based on reliable secondary sources. It violates Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view by presenting Craig Newmark in a more positive light (well, except the "sex trafficking" that was also restored; see above for details on that) than is warranted from what independent sources report. Huon (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)