Wales looking for a stay-at-home mom, to build a Q+A site and make a few $$ Options

[dtobias]

Posted recently by Jimmy Wales to his Facebook page (just before posting "Time for a nap."):

Looking for a stay-at-home mom who wants to build a Q+A site and make a few $$

----------------
Now playing: Katrina & The Waves - Do You Want Crying
via FoxyTunes

[thekohser]

Posted recently by Jimmy Wales to his Facebook page (just before posting "Time for a nap."):

Looking for a stay-at-home mom who wants to build a Q+A site and make a few $$

Seems that it was removed?

Greg

[One]

Seems that it was removed?

Greg

You're clearly not friends with Jimbo.

Aren't these feeds non-public? I get that it's a legal fiction for someone with an enormous friends list, but I still don't think it's proper to relay these messages.

[Kelly Martin]

Aren't these feeds non-public? I get that it's a legal fiction for someone with an enormous friends list, but I still don't think it's proper to relay these messages.

Jimmy has a long history of forwarding private communications all over the place without notice or consent. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Somey]

Aren't these feeds non-public? I get that it's a legal fiction for someone with an enormous friends list, but I still don't think it's proper to relay these messages.

The Facebook page does appear to be non-public, but of course, anyone who posts something like that to Facebook with the expectation that it won't be repeated is a few bricks short of a load.

And really, "stay-at-home mom"...? In a period of massive unemployment in the IT sector, he's using the term "stay-at-home mom" to describe the sort of people he wants as paid employees of Wikia Answers, or whatever it's called these days? We already knew he has little or no respect for knowledge workers and content providers, even those in his employ (look at his treatment of Larry Sanger, for example) - typical of an Ayn Rand freak, btw - but this is ridiculous.

[GlassBeadGame]

Seems that it was removed?

Greg

You're clearly not friends with Jimbo.

Aren't these feeds non-public? I get that it's a legal fiction for someone with an enormous friends list, but I still don't think it's proper to relay these messages.

I'm not that familiar with Facebook's ToS. But I would think it might not permit re-transmission, although I would think that any penalty would at most be some on-site sanction. On the other hand posting for a job, perhaps with highly exploitative terms (work at home and grow rich on the internet...) and especially one that targeted a specific gender and circulated in to a self selected group of self selected racial, gender, nationality and other characteristics seems more problematic. I'm not surprised that it was removed. Or maybe Gregs just pulling some chain connected to something I don't really understand. I can't always tell.

[One]

Seems that it was removed?

Greg

You're clearly not friends with Jimbo.

Aren't these feeds non-public? I get that it's a legal fiction for someone with an enormous friends list, but I still don't think it's proper to relay these messages.

I'm not that familiar with Facebook's ToS. But I would think it might not permit re-transmission, although I would think that any penalty would at most be some on-site sanction. On the other hand posting for a job, perhaps with highly exploitative terms (work at home and grow rich on the internet...) and especially one that targeted a specific gender and circulated in to a self selected group of self selected racial, gender, nationality and other characteristics seems more problematic. I'm not surprised that it was removed. Or maybe Gregs just pulling some chain connected to something I don't really understand. I can't always tell.

I agree.

That said, Perhaps you didn't understand the implication of "you're clearly not friends with Jimbo." Kohs just can't see it.

Let's say that subsequent comments suggest that the origin of this comment is actually from a public twitter feed, to wit: http://twitter.com/gilpenchina

I'm disappoints in Dan for his lack of discretion and due diligence.

This post has been edited by One: Thu 10th September 2009, 7:42pm

[Random832]

I'm disappoints in Dan for his lack of discretion and due diligence.

You mean you expected better?

(I mean, not that I don't often agree with him, but really )

[Alison]

Posted recently by Jimmy Wales to his Facebook page (just before posting "Time for a nap."):

Looking for a stay-at-home mom who wants to build a Q+A site and make a few $$

Blergh!

If it's any consolation, when he was called on it, he said that he'd just forwarded it verbatim from someone else's tweets as instructed. Maybe he didn't read it first

[Moulton]

Facebook has a feature where you can forward a post from one of your friends to others on your own friend list. And they, in turn, can forward that along to their other friends. So there is no basis for expecting that anything posted will not diffuse to a wider audience.

[EricBarbour]

Aren't these feeds non-public? I get that it's a legal fiction for someone with an enormous friends list, but I still don't think it's proper to relay these messages.

Jimmy has a long history of forwarding private communications all over the place without notice or consent.

And this is a perfect example of what egomaniacs do with Facebook.
Posting really personal info is a foolish thing to do, but it stops no one.
At least things are slowly changing. Maybe.

(PS, there are many academic and commercial projects dedicated to harvesting personal information
from sites like Facebook and Bebo. I doubt that Jimbo could claim ignorance of this--unless he really is
as foolish as some claim he is....)

[Appleby]

I'm sure my aunt could do this job. How can she apply?

[One]

I'm sure my aunt could do this job. How can she apply?

Ask Gil: http://twitter.com/gilpenchina

[thekohser]

You're clearly not friends with Jimbo.

...

Perhaps you didn't understand the implication of "you're clearly not friends with Jimbo." Kohs just can't see it.

You're clearly not informed of the facts.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Fri 11th September 2009, 11:38am

[thekohser]

Gil Penchina really is shameless with this new "promotion" of Wikia Nswers (did I spell that correctly?). Offering volunteer editors a 50-50 split of ad revenues seems a little weak, when you consider that Wikipedia Review offers contributors a 100% cut of the ad revenues from AdSense placed within their Directory space content.

Indeed, Wikipedia Review could be used to simulate a Q&A site by just making the Directory page a "Q&A" store, then every sub-page would be a question that you yourself write, then answer with your answer, spruced up with a Google AdSense ad. In fact, if anyone has a Google AdSense account, I'll be happy to help you get started with the architecture for this. 100% take, or 50% take. Which would you prefer?

(I'm learning from the shyster.)

[One]

You're clearly not informed of the facts.

Oh, I see that you are. Sorry about that.

Well, when I click the link, his comment is still there. I'm not sure how to otherwise explain that.

[GlassBeadGame]

Looks to me that both Greg's and Mr. Wales' posts might run afoul of Facebook's ToS. Jimbo probably violated (3) Saftey (10) You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory. It is also arguable, although less clear, that Greg violated (5) Protecting Other People's Rights (7) If you collect information from users, you will: obtain their consent, make it clear you (and not Facebook) are the one collecting their information, and post a privacy policy explaining what information you collect and how you will use it.

So how and why exactly was Mr. Wales' post removed?

[One]

Gil Penchina really is shameless with this new "promotion" of Wikia Nswers (did I spell that correctly?). Offering volunteer editors a 50-50 split of ad revenues seems a little weak, when you consider that Wikipedia Review offers contributors a 100% cut of the ad revenues from AdSense placed within their Directory space content.

Indeed, Wikipedia Review could be used to simulate a Q&A site by just making the Directory page a "Q&A" store, then every sub-page would be a question that you yourself write, then answer with your answer, spruced up with a Google AdSense ad. In fact, if anyone has a Google AdSense account, I'll be happy to help you get started with the architecture for this. 100% take, or 50% take. Which would you prefer?

(I'm learning from the shyster.)

I dunno. I suspect that Yahoo answers is the largest such site, and they don't have payment--they seem to encourage posts by rewarding "points" for answers and best answers, allowing users to literally "level up" (how much more MMORPG can you get?). This gives the site a distinctly juvenile character--and surely it's more shameless than what Gil proposes?

Wiki Answers seems to occassionally run promotions, but I think Wikia-nswers would be unique in this segment for actually offering profit sharing.

This post has been edited by One: Fri 11th September 2009, 1:58pm

[thekohser]

You're clearly not informed of the facts.

Oh, I see that you are. Sorry about that.

Well, when I click the link, his comment is still there. I'm not sure how to otherwise explain that.

Maybe you could take a screen shot of how YOU see the page, if that wouldn't cause GBG to report us to the police?

Perhaps Jimbo has a special button (developed by a volunteer, I'm sure) that he can click to "Hide this post from trolls".

Looks to me that both Greg's and Mr. Wales' posts might run afoul of Facebook's ToS. Jimbo probably violated (3) Saftey (10) You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory. It is also arguable, although less clear, that Greg violated (5) Protecting Other People's Rights (7) If you collect information from users, you will: obtain their consent, make it clear you (and not Facebook) are the one collecting their information, and post a privacy policy explaining what information you collect and how you will use it.

So how and why exactly was Mr. Wales' post removed?

I'd say Wales was more guilty of:

You will not send or otherwise post unauthorized commercial communications (such as spam) on Facebook.