These pages need to be deleted:

http://www.eyeonwiner.org/wiki/index.php/Special:Log/move

I am very impressed with your support of Wikipedia. I can see that you’ve given these issues a lot of thought and effort.

Dave Winer has a real friend in you and I’m sure he’s earned your support. His podcasts do a much better job at showing his readers when his essential nature is like.

One some comment on Wikipedia edits. I like conflict to be documented. I think leaving in a little bit about Roger’s editing practices helps his critics feel like they are being represented on the record. Silencing critics serves to fuel negative energy… and most of that negative energy is turned on wikipedia and the volunteers that do the editing.

I don’t like heirarchy in a public process. Let a variety of views be aired. It makes for more interesting reading and the conflict is often worth discussion. Heat is energy and it can be directed in positive applications as well as negative ones.

Editing, blocking access to a comment forum and over controlling the public record just creates resistance when people should be learning to air and discuss their conflicts in more productive methods.

So, edit with a little sensitivity to the intent of the writer… sure they may have an axe to grind but the reader can often put the words into a larger context and see what you see. Roger Cadenhead is committed to advancing progressive political ideas… and he edits comments that cross some lines. I personally like his work. I’m in his choir. But it’s OK to show his complete use of the media to maintain a productive forum. He’s a shining example of a web personality that identifies conflict and discusses it in a civil manner.

That material is so old that it doesn’t seem to be archived under “old threads” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dave_Winer#Old_threads

But if you go to that “Old Threads” URL and then click “show” so that you can see the discussions I had with Danny Ayers–well, my half of them, anyway, since he deleted his half–you can also see me saying that I am Dave’s friend.

Here’s another instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dave_Winer&diff=prev&oldid=107715971

But I’m not anonymous, my friendship with Winer is no secret, and I do understand that some people feel strongly that this should prevent me from editing his bio. Wikipedia policy requires NPOV (a neutral point of view) in the edits, not in the heart of the editor. I’ve also supported removal of “puffery” from Dave’s article–and even stuck up for its link to “Eye on Winer.”

McD, thanks for the kind words. If the NYT or CNET or Wired ran an article about Cadenhead’s editing practices then I’d agree that info should go into Wikipedia, citing the published, notable source. But somebody’s unsupported allegations don’t seem to me to belong in Wikipedia. And I’d say that even if somebody were trying to add unsupported allegations about Karl Rove, whom I dislike. (But Rove’s not on my watchlist, thank goodness–I don’t have that much spare time!)

The Dave Winer bio does mention Cadenhead’s major role in saving Weblogs.com. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Winer#Weblogs.com

You know enough about Wikipedia to recognize that editing your good friend’s bio is wrong. Use the talk page like you expect critics like Irelan to do.

She’s protected him from unflattering photos, added some of the puffiest quotes in praise of him, made that section even more flattering, added his claim to be one of the first bloggers, and passed along the bogus claim about Weblogs.Com being a planned outage.

It’s amazing that Wikipedia editors let her get away with it.

The claim that Dave had “one of the first” weblogs was deleted from the article (with much other relevant stuff) and I restored it. The edit you cite about Weblogs.com says nothing about its being a planned outage–I got my info from the published source cited there.

Wikipedian edits are guided by a wide range of written policies and overseen by many hard-working and experienced editors. None of them has criticized me for trying to maintain balance in the often-attacked bios on my watchlist, which includes Dave Winer, who is a good friend. I see that somebody has raised the question on the talk page, so I hope it will get some response from somebody authoritative.

Wikipedia recently made some changes to its policies about biographies of living persons–my understanding is that the reason was fear of libel suits.

You know Dave well, I’d guess. You care about Dave.

Most of us only know Dave from his writings and email. So, one might say that we have no right to have strong opinions about someone weve never met.

I’ve never met any public figure but I have strong opinions about George Bush, Brittany Spears, Barry Bonds, etc.

Dave doesn’t want to be a public figure but he continues to write about his daily activities. Write about others in ways that can be offensive and self-serving. And there’s an army of Dave’s friends willing to accept and forgive almost any behavior Dave exhibits.

You are the leading example of that enabling behavior. If a few of Dave’s friends explained to him that he needs to consider carefully how he pulls out the big artillery when someone embarrasses him (Calacanis being the latest target of Dave’s injured wrath) then he might stop the “war” before UN observers are needed to halt the violence.

Many of Dave’s infamous “flame wars” are a closed loop feedback system with Dave ‘s injured ego fueling the furnace. Weblogs.com was an embarrassment to Dave’s ego. The full story is not in wikipedia and the lessons of a “free service” quitting operations are valuable for many users and service providers to understand.

Weblogs.com was essentially saved by Rogers Cadenhead providing assistance to Dave. It would be nice for the record to have some of those details. The full story behind Dave’s exploits are more interesting than his versions because he’s become too defensive… and maybe with good reason.

Let the record show the man in his full, complex dimensions.

I personally think that removing he lines about Roger Cadenhead’s controversial editing does us all a disservice. And it gives the appearance of a conspiracy to silence critics when there’s a legitimate issue worth discussing. What editorial rights does the host of the forum have over words displayed on their site?

Making wikipedia safe for the subject is a poor service for the reader. Don’t protect the subject. Let the POV being aired to a greater degree. That’s my two cents.

Reagrding the Eye on Winer Wiki… I’d expect it to be full of opinion and have a lot of “facts” that are not facts but it will serve the needs of it’s readers… many of whom have been injured by Dave’s heavy handed approach to debating issues that both sides care about passionately. Dave doesn’t work well in groups… he’s a cranky loaner when it comes to work. And when his vanquished opponents on a technology like syndication break away to implement a counter view he wages a campaign of disinformation and abuse anyway. You just can’t find a way to get Dave to play well with others.

You see him as an injured person with a good heart. Fair enough.

We see him as a dysfunctional technical heavyweight who opposes the progress of internet standards efforts to make the web a more rationale place to work and have a community.

Everything is contingent upon behavior. If Dave behaved better he’d get better treatment. Even EOW mentions Dave’s good deeds. There’s just not enough examples to outweigh his tantrums, rants and attacks.

She just doesn’t care that she’s in the wrong.

Or should I not have challenged unsource ugly comments about Rogers Cadenhead? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rogers_Cadenhead&diff=prev&oldid=143901914

Or corrected this POV edit to Dave Winer? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Winer&diff=prev&oldid=82221928

I am working to keep Wikipedia free of both negative POV and puffy PR positive POV. It’s a goal I would suggest for your new wiki.

De Nile is still a river in Africa.

The moving finger writes and having written (and being read) comes back to delete.

I Dove into Delete (more than once).