Talk:Dave Winer

Podcasting

If you guys undo one more change without providing some proof I'll report you. DAVE DID NOT INVENT PODCASTING.--Irelan12 (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi - discussion is key - I suggest a read of WP:BRD - its a good way of working together - you make a B old edit and its R everted and you then Discuss - BRD - Please don't post in capitals, its considered shouting , thanks - Youreallycan 18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Quit telling me what to do and stop adding incorrect statements. There are people who founded large companies that don't have this much talk about their blogs and fake claims of inventing things. You guys are being rediculous.--Irelan12 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Now, if you want any of those back, provide proof. --Irelan12 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Irelan, please calm down. We have discussed these questions at great length. Winer's role in the development of podcasting is clear and well known. Winer’s role in developing and promoting EditThisPage is also well known. Both are clearly documented. None of this is ridiculous, or even contested by the overwhelming consensus here. Some questions of nuance may deserve discussion. Were other developers at Userland worth mentioning here? Should more attention to these matters be paid at Userland's page? But the outlines are clear. Further, your tone seems less the civil -- and appears to be growing more agitated, not less, as suggested by your threat to "report you".

I'd also like to point out that the subject founded several very successful companies and did, in point of fact, play a central and crucial role in developing and popularizing outliners, podcasts, and outlines. Your insistence that these are "fake claims" is not supported by the historical record and, in themselves, raise some potential BLP issues.

In any case, I think I speak for a number of editors in asking that you not make further sweeping edits along these lines before discussing them, and obtaining a reasonable consensus, here. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Writer Section

The "writer" section is clearly not worthy of being in the page. It is simply fluff meant to add credibility to the rest of the page. If you look at Steve Wozniak his personal site isn't mentioned, the same is true for other tech company heads.--Irelan12 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If no one objects to this, here, I will consider it approval to edit the page. Any undoing will be considered vandalism.--Irelan12 (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

strong objection. Winer was for many years a leading tech journalist. His journalism alone would make him notable in wikipedia terms. In addition, Winer's Scripting News was extremely important in forming weblog style, and in creating the now-familiar role of tech celebrity. (Please assume good faith and tone down the threats that "any undoing will be considered vandalism". By whom? Let's get along.) MarkBernstein (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark, you certainly haven't wanted to get along in the past. He isn't a journalist at all. He has a personal blog that details his personal feels. His work for Hotwired is documented. I see no other tech company founders who's personal blog is listed in their article. All of this talk like, "important in forming a style and the father of", simply exists because I pointed out that he didn't invent the things this article claims he did. I have no objection to including a link to Scripting news, but a section about writing because he has a personal site? Come on.--Irelan12 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Some examples: Jakob Nielsen is directly comparable. John Gruber occupies a place today much like the one Winer occupied years ago. On Winer's role in the development of weblog style, see Scott Rosenberg, __Say Anything_ Scott_Rosenberg_(journalist). MarkBernstein (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of those people's personal sites are listed as links. Only companies are listed in the article.--Irelan12 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Analogies with other Wikipedia articles are irrelevant. There is one simple and compelling rationale for this section: Winer's writing is discussed in a non-trivial number of reliable sources, which are duly referenced in the section. ARK (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Share Your OPML and Edit This Page

Also, Id like to get along, but some of this is obviously fluff and making some of the things hes done vastly more important than they were. Some of these share your OPML site type entries are for sites that were never popular and don't exist anymore. Bill Gates started a company before Microsoft, but its never got its own section. Lets be fair instead of promoting fluff.--Irelan12 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC) For example, Editthispage.com was a Userland site, not Dave's site.--Irelan12 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Share your OPML was noted in the technology press at the time. The comparison with Bill Gates is spurious: Living Videotext created a new commercial product category and won a major industry award for one of its products. ARK (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Editthispage and some of the ohter sites are Userland sites, not Dave's. You will leave untruths in the article and try to take away negative things that are clearly mentioned in a notable blog. Please quit editing this article as you have proven you can't do so with a clear mind. --Irelan12 (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ARK, and I am not convinced by your arguments. Disclosure: though I was a Radio Userland user for a short time 10 years ago or more, I do not presently use any of Winer's software, nor do I know him personally. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Winer never formalised corporate governance at UserLand -- it was understood that he was making the strategic and operational decisions on his own. It was certainly his decision to launch Edit This Page, and it was his decision to pump it up even in the absence of a business plan. So insisting on a separation between Winer the man an UserLand the company is mostly an exercise in splitting hairs.

I've added a reference from an O'Reilly book to the Share Your OPML section, which should establish its notability beyond reasonable doubt. ARK (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That dosen't cut it, the site that is listed as a reference shows a screen shot that says Userland. Why is it so important to puff this article up? It was clearly a Userland product.--Irelan12 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

UserLand was a small company that consisted of Dave Winer and whatever half-dozen-or-so programmers he was hiring at any one time. For most of its history, UserLand also depended on Winer to write the cheques that would keep the company going because revenue was negligible or inexistent. Winer was also the majority shareholder, so he wasn't accountable to anybody. The difference between Winer the man and UserLand the company amounts to a pointless quibble.

Again, this is a fluff piece. I have cited proof that Editthispage was a Userland product and you still refuse to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irelan12 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that EditThisPage was a UserLand site, there is no "proof" required. Nobody, however, finds your argument convincing that the circumstance is grounds for excluding EditThisPage from Winer's biography. DaveNet and Scripting News were UserLand sites at the time. ARK (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If its common knowledge that Userland made it then your opinions don't matter. It should be removed according to the rules of Wikipedia. I thank you for admitting such.--Irelan12 (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude a UserLand project from the page; the subject ran the company and was its primary software designer. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm going to remove it. Your opinion is not important when it's a matter of fact.--Irelan12 (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why remove Edit This Page? It's been discussed here, and I think the consensus is clear that Edit This Page belongs on this page. Of course, if you'd like to improve the Userland page by discussing it there as well, that would be excellent! Why not think of some better ways to extend and improve this page? MarkBernstein (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Only items that are true and referenced belong. Editthispage was created by Userland, it dosen't belong here.--Irelan12 (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There are several broken links. We need to fix this to make sure the references are correct.--Irelan12 (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretending to fix a broken link, Irelan12 has just made a bad-faith edit removing the Edit This Page section, overruling the view of the other editors in this thread. ARK (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added two book references to the Edit This Page section, one of which explicitly identifies Winer as the "proprietor" of the service. ARK (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

EDITTHISPAGE WAS MADE BY USERLAND.--Irelan12 (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuit and Cybersquatting

Quit undoing things and calling them vandalism. If the statements are true they can be here. Quit trying to edit out anything negative. You act like children. You do not own Wikipedia and can't delete things that you simply don't like.

Its nice that this page is protected every time someone adds something that isn't flattering to Dave Winer. I would like to see anyone argue that Gawker and the other sources are not apropriate. There is nothing wrong with the edits I made, the people here are simply biased and childish. If you can show that any of the things added are untrue, please discuss it here rather than simply trying to force people to do as Mr. Winer asks.(Irelan12)

Winer's alleged cybersquatting is not a matter of "truth" but of relevance. A minor squabble over a few domain registrations is simply too trivial to merit inclusion in this biography, even if a self-described gossip magazine and an adversarial blog chose to report it. The litigation over weblogs.com was apparently decided in Winer's favour, so the there is no reason to repeat the charges brought against him. ARK (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ARK (talk) Your reasoning for not wanting the cyber squatting episode in the article, is that it is not flattering to Dave. The episodes got more attention in the media then most of the other things mentioned here. Also, the lawsuit's outcome has no baring on its merit. He was sued and I provided documentation. If you would like to include what the outcome was please do so. Simply editing my contributions is the vandalism you guys have accused me of. You are capable of adding what you want, so do so if you have references and please leave what it true in the article.--Irelan12 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed the section topic to a more neutral-sounding summary. I think this is probably a good idea for keeping everyone calm and civil.

I think good faith suggests that we should assume that ARK's edits are intended to improve Wikipedia, and civility suggests that we should not attribute motivations to other users. WIkipedia articles should be informative; they are not meant to be catalogs of every fact or occurrence, verifiable or not. Someone filed a lawsuit; they lost. This happens all the time for all sorts of reasons, and there's no clear reason to think this episode is significant. Two businesses disagreed over exactly who owned what; the courts cleared it up. Happens every day. You, NIrelan, care about it, but I don't know why it matters to the general reader. MarkBernstein (talk)

I would like to propose the Cybersquatting section for removal as it does not meet the notability criterion. Moreover, the headline of the article cited for support should disqualify that article from consideration as a reliable source. ARK (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. DaveSeidel (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ark this just shows your bias, the cybersquatting section is based on a more reputable site than anything referncing the OPML part.--Irelan12 (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The irrelevance you wish to include under Cybersquatting is still only supported by a potty-mouthed piece in a gossip rag. Its foul language is evidence that the piece didn't go through an editorial process. Normally on Wikipedia, editorial process is the baseline for a reliable source. ARK (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete the section, keep OPML. It seems to me that we discussed the cybersquatting question some time ago and decided it was not sufficiently important to include. Is this not a WP:DEADHORSE? The question of separating Winer from UserLand is pointless; whatever its revenues and governance, UserLand was unquestionable an influential software developer and Winer was its software designer and architect. The Gawker piece is not a reliable source, and even if there were a reliable source -- there are surely court records -- the incident would not be notable. Businesses ask courts to decide who owns what all the time, and people do defensive domain registrations all the time as well. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

+1. The horse does indeed stink to high heaven. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Another obvious concern is Nirelan's conflict of interest: He was party to the incident he wishes to include in Winer's biography, and has previously failed to get the biography deleted in response to the incident. Here's the comment thread that triggered the hostilities in 2007. ARK (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ark Bestydevine or whatever her screen name is has contributed several things to this article and personally knows Dave.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irelan12 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the Cybersquatting section per WP:DEADHORSE (original discussion in 2007) ARK (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

This article is now the subject of a thread on the BLP noticeboard: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dave Winer. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Irelan12 has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Nirelan. ARK (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Block logs: [Irelan12] [Nirelan] -- Irelan12 has been blocked for 48 hours. ARK (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

user:Irelan12 has been banned from Wikipedia after a discussion at the Wikipedia administrators' noticeboard. ARK (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

External Links

Yes, the list of external links is undesirable. This page has been a source of friction over the years, however, and in some cases material that probably ought to be present in the main body has been relegated to this list out of sensitivity to the concerns of specific editors. I'd like to verify that the most useful links are properly connected to the main article before we simply delete the list. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a few items on that list that can be dropped: others should be worked into the body of the article, I think. FrontierKernel.org, for instance, should go with a mention under Years at UserLand that Winer chose to release Frontier under a FOSS licence in 2004, Eye on Winer could go under Writer, along with a mention of WinerLog, for which there's probably a reliable source around. Weblogs at Harvard Law School could be its own project under Projects and activities, etc.

Allow it to stay for now and we'll work it off one item at a time. ARK (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality questioned

This article has been nominated by an anonymous user to be checked for its neutrality. As the user offers no discussion of this nomination, I assume it can be ignored and the template should be removed. ARK (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But isn't it interesting how quiet and trouble-free this page has been in the six months since one user was banned? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I just read through all of the prior history of contention on this article. I understand the banned user's point, and am sympathetic. I also understand why it was problematic, in the context of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a form of investigative journalism. Wikipedia cannot right grievous miscarriages of justice nor remedy unethical behavior by the subjects of BLP articles. Trying to do so wouldn't right the wrongs expressed by the banned editor(s), but rather, lead to defamation lawsuits against WP. That isn't helpful to anyone!

Be all this as it may, I found the article quite informative as it is now. I don't believe that a recording of the subject's voice is necessary. Otherwise, it is quite sufficient for me to see that the subject's background as a businessman is chronicled, sparsely but sufficiently. The same is true regarding the question of "Who invented RSS, RSS 1.0 and RSS 2.0, Aaron Swartz or DW?" and so forth. I am most grateful for the details regarding DW and Professor Jay Rosen's collaborative endeavors. The article is probably too lengthy, and fails to mention religious affiliation, marital status or offspring. If I were gratuitously trouble-making, I would initiate a squabble about whether the subject should be included in Category American Jews. I am not inclined toward that, not for now. --FeralOink (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of the subject's voice is not a matter of being "necessary" or not: it's a nice thing to have, like good photography and so on. A whole project run by User:Pigsonthewing and others was setup to collect these. Just because something isn't "necessary" doesn't mean we shouldn't include it if it is both interesting and doesn't fall foul of content policies. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We've had the "POV check" for 5 1/2 months; it's time to delete it. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits of this date

Calling for a little outside attention to the article. I came here today to find out the role of this individual in some technological advances. The article is rich with detail, but limited in its broader perspective, in part because it relies so thoroughly on news reports (which do not have the persecutive or go deeply enough to be actual best sources for WP historical statements), and then, as well, it relies on substantial material, sourced and unacknowledged, that derives from the title subject. For these reasons, I have called for a technology expert to see if some Winer sources can be replaced with third-party, scholarly, secondary sources, to buttress stated importance of his contributions and innovations.

In course of doing this, an effort was made to begin the process of checking and completing citation to standard, esp. URL-only citations.

As well, I have made more transparent the lack of sourcing of some material to Winer sources (adding tags to clear autobiographical statements), and as a matter of principle and policy, have removed a variety of external links that were embedded in the text (turning them into formal sources). An inexplicable external link to a blog, of Winer's father, was removed, because it was unclear what this source was intended to convey. (Perhaps the externally linked blog was the blog of the father; regardless, it was not properly placed as a source, and was not a valid source for the fact that the gentleman named was Winer's father.

As well, the general issue is explained in this way, to include the indirect: It is clear that Mr Winer has initiated and participated in many efforts, organizations, and companies. When these organizations and companies produce informational materials about Winer efforts, products, etc. these sources of information are still, inherently under the control of the title subject (while he is at the helm of the effort), and so these are not independent, third-party sources, as called for under WP:VERIFY. Hence, these also do not contribute the perspective that is most needed (and called for via the expert tag), for this article.

Otherwise, in lessor matters, I combined two overly short sections containing related career content categories, made a section title to be "‎Family background and education" as this is more standard for BLP articles, added a "Personal life" section, to end, as per standard for biographies,

Finally, the reason for the "third-party" and BLP refimprove" tags was simply this: there was a complete lack of third-party sourcing in the Early life… section, and most material there was unsourced. And as I scanned elsewhere in the article, I noted that this bad habit of inserting unsourced sentences had begun to occur, in this otherwise well-researched article.

It is best we keep to standard, and not let the article begin to drift to the addition of stray unsourced statements. People's opinions and stray thoughts are fine, but they are not encyclopedic.

That is all, Press on. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)