Talk:LiveJournal: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:43, 10 October 2004 edit67.119.155.169 (talk) →Frank the Goat ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:31, 18 December 2004 edit undoRho~enwiki (talk \| contribs)503 edits Controversy sectionNext edit →
Line 43:		Line 43:

	] 06:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)		] 06:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

			== Controversy section ==

			First off, the disclaimer:

			I used to be a member of the LJ abuse team, but left the team a few months ago. As such, I almost certainly have some bias in this issue. So I'm not making much in the way of edits here just yet.

			:From its support group LiveJournal created an Abuse team

			I've removed this as simply not true. When the abuse team was originally created, it worked entirely independantly of support. It was only later that the two were integrated.

			:As the critics had suspected, the policy document was indeed much stricter than what was suggested as acceptable by the Terms of Service.

			I disagree with this bit as well. Personally, I think that the ToS are incredibly strict, and the actual policies less strict. Should we try to elaborate on both viewpoints here, or should we just provide links to the two documents and let the readers decide for themselves?

			:some believe that these users are abandoning LiveJournal for other blogging sites.

			Who believes this?

			:This has exacerbated the opinion held by some that LiveJournal is a fine host for teenage diaries and social networking

			And who holds these opinions?

			:Whether these Terms of Service and their enforcement by the Abuse team will affect LiveJournal revenue remains to be seen.

			And this just seems to be entirely meaningless in terms of actual content.

			If someone from "the other side" of this argument, or a neutral, could try to address some of these points, then that would be good. Otherwise I'll give it a go myself. ] 12:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:31, 18 December 2004

Information on LJ introducing posting limits? --asilvahalo

There aren't any posting limits just now. I'll add the information when they go into actual effect for longer than just a day ;-) -- Timwi 15:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Important Milestones Missing

I took these off of the article as they looked just a tad unprofessional and they belong back here Xoder 15:25, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Friends list, security settings
Friends view
User pictures

Frank the Goat

Who's gonna edit or delete the nonsense? --Sam Francis

For one, why is it nonsense? For two, you're more than welcome to, though others may revert, so it's useful to justify your deletion here. --Golbez 22:13, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense it may be, but its nonsense the people who run LJ have incorporated into their business. Please note Frank's Home Page, and his (albiet unofficial) Journal. — Xoder |✆ 02:38, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the main part I object to, which is "Although most people think that goats are incapable of using a computer or human emotion, Frank proves skeptics wrong." It just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -- Sam Francis

I hope I'm not alone in calling that sentence nonsense. --Sam Francis

you are not alone... there is so much detailed unneccearry crap in there... who cares when LJ hired their first employee etc. that's by far the most useless article I've seen on wikipedia so far.

Just for the joy of recursion:

Four million accounts

I was unable to find any announcement of when LJ reached 4 million accounts, but if anyone does it'd be a nice addition to the timeline. It happened somewhere around or before August 2004, I guess, so that's quite the exponential growth :) --Spug 15:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other Sites

Have removed a large list of other sites running off the LJ code, as Misplaced Pages is not a web directory, and the list was getting somewhat out of hand, IMO. I'd suggest that any site which is significant enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article could be added back, but we should probably keep them out otherwise. For the record, the list was:

Rho 06:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Controversy section

First off, the disclaimer:

I used to be a member of the LJ abuse team, but left the team a few months ago. As such, I almost certainly have some bias in this issue. So I'm not making much in the way of edits here just yet.

From its support group LiveJournal created an Abuse team

I've removed this as simply not true. When the abuse team was originally created, it worked entirely independantly of support. It was only later that the two were integrated.

As the critics had suspected, the policy document was indeed much stricter than what was suggested as acceptable by the Terms of Service.

I disagree with this bit as well. Personally, I think that the ToS are incredibly strict, and the actual policies less strict. Should we try to elaborate on both viewpoints here, or should we just provide links to the two documents and let the readers decide for themselves?

some believe that these users are abandoning LiveJournal for other blogging sites.

Who believes this?

This has exacerbated the opinion held by some that LiveJournal is a fine host for teenage diaries and social networking

And who holds these opinions?

Whether these Terms of Service and their enforcement by the Abuse team will affect LiveJournal revenue remains to be seen.

And this just seems to be entirely meaningless in terms of actual content.

If someone from "the other side" of this argument, or a neutral, could try to address some of these points, then that would be good. Otherwise I'll give it a go myself. Rho 12:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)