Jump to content

Talk:Craigslist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of employees

[edit]

The number of employees listed in the article (50) is quite out of date (2017). I could not find a more recent source but that doesn't mean there isn't one. There has been a lore that Craiglist is run with a small number of employees, but clearly their number has grown. In 2006 it was 23, [1] and in 2022 Craig Newmark said "It’s in the 10s"[2] (i.e. fewer than 100).

Glassdoor currently lists the company as having "51-200" employees. Would that be a better number to include in the side bar since that 2017 number is 7 years old? [3] --107.190.43.119 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is Glassdoor's source of information? Go with the 2022 interview: 10-99. Chino-Catane (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging Missed Connections Addition

[edit]

Ironically, trying to add this info resulted in threats of an edit war and bans. My change was reverted supposedly because forums cannot be cited, violating REVERT ONLY WHEN NECESSARY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary If the citation is the only issue, why not leave up the rest? Literally the next sentence is worse, uncited entirely. The problem of course is this only happens on the forums. Further, the reverter went on my talk page to threaten a ban.

Original addition: " Some users allege the Missed Connection section has had lower requirements for removal, and is effectively just a trash bin for personals violations, or at best a miscategorized services reference section (without any evidence), likely resulting in discrimination as otherwise identical (just race, gender, etc. differences) and proper Missed Connection ads are left up for weeks. [4] "

Very next sentence: " Some users allege that flagging may also occur as acts of vandalism by groups of individuals at different ISPs, but no evidence of this has ever been shown. Flagging can also alert Craigslist staff to blocks of ads requiring manual oversight or removal.[5] "

Note the reference in that next sentence doesn't even exist, and is used throughout the flagging section!

" Flagging does not require account login or registration, and can be done anonymously by anyone.[5] Postings are subject to automated removal when a certain number of users flag them. The number of flags required for a posting's removal is dynamically variable and remains unknown to all but Craigslist staff.[5] Some users allege that flagging may also occur as acts of vandalism by groups of individuals at different ISPs, but no evidence of this has ever been shown. Flagging can also alert Craigslist staff to blocks of ads requiring manual oversight or removal.[5] "

Then this gets flagged, effectively, the irony...

Should I remove that entire paragraph then, since it is just as "bad" as my addition? I am discussing here first.

References

  1. ^ "about". Retrieved 15 March 2024.
  2. ^ Emily, Dreibelbis. "Here's Why Craigslist Still Looks the Same After 25+ Years". Retrieved 15 March 2024.
  3. ^ "What is Craigslist?". Glassdoor. Retrieved 15 March 2024.
  4. ^ craigslist > forums > cl - flag help, 2021-12-30.
  5. ^ a b c d "Unofficial Flagging FAQ". Craigslist users. Archived from the original on August 5, 2012. Retrieved September 15, 2010.


Why does this entry lack author attribution and a date? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chino-Catane: review the histories. My explanation based on those histories was reverted by the same user who completely and indefinitely banned the author, preventing anyone from answering you:
71.34.88.21 (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The unsigned entry appears to be an artifact of a dispute between one recalcitrant computer programmer and a group of at least four other intransigent computer programmers. The escalation from block warning to actual indefinite block is both remarkable and concerning. From the view of an objective observer, there exists no self-evident reason why this escalation occurred so rapidly and severely. The initial four edits by GildedBrain appear to be innocuous and cannot, by themselves, explain why they resulted in the block warning and subsequent indefinite block of said editor. The motive for this individual's seemingly benign first edit remains unclear, as there is no link to the mentioned "elite forum war". Perhaps the dispute arose from a preexisting conflict that is now unrecoverable from an outsider's examination of these histories. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the excellent analysis, the history is quite confusing! I am curious about a couple of these conclusions, such as the participants’ jobs, but I think the remarkable and concerning indefinite block and now-unrecoverable sources (citable or not) are higher priorities for Wikipedia. I was able to find a couple remaining relevant posts from a “GildedBrain” on the relevant Craigslist official flag forum [[1]] “cl - flag help”
[[2]], responding to others including pointing to relevant Wikipedia articles, and perhaps missed in some cleanup there resulting in similar artifacts. Of course, User:GildedBrain, the original author, may have more complete copies they could share if not blocked, albeit perhaps even more un-citable. 2600:1700:543A:7E10:943A:AC36:C57E:639 (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I don’t know what happened to the links! And I’m concerned about my own posts being reverted, so I am trying to contribute quickly (I would be happy to edit my post above, or this, to make it cleaner more compliant whatever, but I think a new reply is best for now?). Although maybe you already scoured them to reach your conclusions? Sorry if this is repetitive. Note these articles lack anything about the main event years ago: Craigslist’s removal of Personals, sneakily moving Missed Connection (which was under Personals, do we have any citation for that?) to Community (you can see that still today).
“The site's popular "missed connections" section remains in place in the U.S.”
Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we have regretfully taken craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day.
To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!
To GildedBrain - Thank you! < SixbyNine > 2021-12-30 22:44
I was unaware of the Wikipedia entry you referenced.
To IggyLuv - According to the Wikipedia article, my ad meets the criteria and should not have been removed.
To NyanCat - Is it not the goal of EVERY SINGLE AD on Craigslist to pursue some type of PERSONAL relationship?
Granted that relationship may be short-lived and detached (I sell a bicycle to someone). It may be long term platonic (I rent a room from someone and become their roommate). It may be sexual/romantic. Even offering a service (like auto detailing) creates a personal relationship between the car owner and detailer.
The point being that every person that posts an ad on Craigslist is looking for another person to respond, thus forming a personal relationship.
To cl-VPD - It seems to me that your 2 examples are personal. Every time 2 people engage in communication creates a type of personal relationship.
There used to be a TV Commercial for AT&T that said the most successful business relationships are personal.
It seems that CL software and/or community removes legitimate ads (at least per the Wikipedia article) improperly.
“Thanks GildedBrain < JustAngie1 > 2021-12-30 19:19
Thank you for your words but I think this is beyond help. I looked and this is a habit with the nasty one. I will not respond any longer because no site is worth being abused by a stranger. I only asked for help not judgement.
Hope your year is as nice as you are.
Thanks again 2600:1700:543A:7E10:943A:AC36:C57E:639 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=319805192 was the last one. Sorry again for the mess, I hope it helps! 2600:1700:543A:7E10:943A:AC36:C57E:639 (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh here is one from GildedBrain directly - and not scrubbed! I don’t know if there are better ways to search (or again if any of this is useful):
MISSED CONNECTIONS IS ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION< GildedBrain > 2021-12-31 14:29
Sorry I'm a WHITE STRAIGHT MAN in LIBERAL SAN FRANCISCO. You do know ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION is against TOU? 2600:1700:543A:7E10:943A:AC36:C57E:639 (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I failed at yet another link copy, and that latest found text possibly from the original author has me feeling very uncomfortable about proceeding (I now am finding more, not citing), even if I am contributing. Am I doxing the original author now? I have no intention of doing that! Of course this subject is inherently among the most privacy sensitive of all Wikipedia. I don’t know what to do. Sorry all! 2600:1700:543A:7E10:943A:AC36:C57E:639 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor 2600:1700:543A:7E10:943A:AC36:C57E:639: Where, in all this, can evidence be found illuminating GildedBrain's motive for registration and publication of the aforementioned first edit? Where is the link to the "elite forum war" that this user mentioned? Chino-Catane (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all that, I am not clear on the goal, and this all does look delicate. Are we trying to salvage? Overall, I think that first edit, to start most minimally, was motivated by a desire to update Wikipedia with knowledge gained from a relevant “forum” (“elite” and “war” may be exaggerations, to say the least) which explicitly called out the article under edit as out of date.
Regardless, following your questions particularly for evidence, I realized we can of course search that forum for those quotes in that first edit. I found one full quote and another with half of the examples (“pediatrician”, “dog walker”). Are these helpful? Should I try to find more?
I also stumbled across more posts from other people of other protected groups claiming discrimination. I am not quoting or linking them, and think I should not have quoted or linked the original author’s. I don’t know.
That article was probably written before < pdik66 > 2021-12-30 23:30
the personals categories because of the hookers and trolls.
You're conflating. There are plenty of missed < cl-VPD > 2021-12-30 19:44
connections that are not personals.
Two(or more) mothers chat at a park. One posts for the missed connection of not getting pediatrician referrals from another.
Two(or more) dog owners chat in passing at the dog park and one posts a missed connection to get the name of another owner's dog sitter.
And so on...
No dating, no hook-up, not even seeking to be friends... or penpals... nothing, etc.... not a personals ad at all.
If the category catches the prohibited ads, all the better to corral them and purge them either by staff action, automated algorithms, or y local audience flags... perhaps all three. Win - Win! 2600:1700:543A:7E10:943A:AC36:C57E:639 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=319805450 2600:1700:543A:7E10:943A:AC36:C57E:639 (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not clear on the goal"
The objectives are two-fold: (1) discover why this unsigned and orphaned section entry has been allowed to persist here un-archived for years and (2) determine if the administration of Wikipedia policy was appropriately applied to the recalcitrant editor called GildedBrain. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Craigslist&oldid=1252520980"