DISQUS

noah kagan · 2 years ago

Auren is a solid guy. I think Valleywag needs to find better things to write about then chastising people.

Jeremy Toeman · 2 years ago

Not quite sure where the story is here... If he was out writing comments on stories like these as anonymous, and got caught, that'd be something. This sounds like the combination of an inside joke and someone with way too much time on their hands...

Anon · 2 years ago

Mlkhamilton aka Hoffman seems to have created wikipedia entry for himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auren...

hmmm silly!

Steve Bryant · 2 years ago

I had dinner with Auren once, and he seemed like a good man to me. Valleywag -- and Venturebeat -- should really find someone else to pick at.

Trent · 2 years ago

This reporting IS very relevant because of Hoffman's Rapfleaf (buyer/seller reputation tracking) affiliation. It shows that reputations can be easily manipulated using shills and fake identities.

John Doe · 2 years ago

This reportng is 100% relevant because VentureBeat is a VC/Startup Blog and anything valley should be reported. I am glad to read these kind of stories.

Dave · 2 years ago

Can we all just check ourselves for a moment. Do you really think anyone outside of our echo chamber gives a hoot about this? C'mon. Say what you want about Auren, good and bad, he's actually a nice guy, a mensch, who does his best to contribute to the upward march of humanity. But we're not talking about Mel Gibson here. Shouldn't we all be rooting for everyone to succeed? Rising tides lift all boats, even the haters among us if they let it.

Robin Wolaner · 2 years ago

I agree with Dave and am putting my real name behind it. This is a non-story being pushed way out of proportion. Get a grip.

Daniel Ciomek · 2 years ago

Good guy, bad guy, who knows or dares to judge? It does not matter. If you are really such a good guy, you should not have to worry about some comments about there, but that is just my personal opinion. What matters is the idea behind ("pictures on his wall aren't relevant"). When someone who runs a reputation related business starts cleaning up his profile by deciding himself on what is relevant or not, that becomes interesting. Where do you draw the line? Can you decide for yourself about what is relevant to your profile within his database?
Let's be real, people might write stuff about yourself or your product that you don't like, these days maybe on another blog. Should you be entitled to have it removed if you think it is not true or not relevant, or is it ok as it is their opinion and thus free speech? What I like about Ebay is the comments stay and give a perspective, for you to make up your own decision. Give some praise to those that wear their negative remarks and not quickly change their profile. They are real people, not some polished masquerade. Thanks for posting this! I think is is an excellent Valley related discussion topic.

Gordon Mohr · 2 years ago

Editting one's own article on Wikipedia is allowed; Cory Doctorow has done it; even Jimmy Wales has done it. Not bad company for Hoffman to be in.

It's also understandable, moreso than ironic, that someone who is building e business based on the importance of online reputations would monitor and improve information about himself on the web, such as on Wikipedia.

What I do find ironic is that even if your edits wind up making the Wikipedia article more accurate and more 'encyclopedic', you risk looking "foolish and vain" (as noted by Andrew Orlowski here about someone else's self-editting).

Oh, well. That's an occupational hazard of caring about your public persona. I have observed Auren to be energetic, smart, and principled, going back 15 years. Nothing reported or alleged here calls that into question.

Dina Kaplan · 2 years ago

It's interesting that amidst the valleywag stories about Auren there is an article about tech executives who give money to Republican candidates, as if that is akin to a crime. It makes this seem like something of an attempted character assasination, without any base.

It's probably fair to say a number of people edit their wikipedia entries.

And regarding another facet of valleywag's ongoing character assault, I believe being as warm and friendly to people as Auren is - some high profile, many not - is not something to be criticized, but admired.

Anon · 2 years ago

while
>>Editting one’s own article on Wikipedia is allowed
creating one is strongly discouraged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO#Creating_a...
which is what Auren did.

Neal · 2 years ago

Bashing is not journalism.

hunter walk · 2 years ago

this whole thing feels like it would be more interesting as a depersonalized discussion of wikipedia's policy, norms and community, than specifically of anything Auren did or did not do.

Lynne Jolitz · 2 years ago

Seems to me the question is "What do you do if a wikipedia article on you is in error"? Unlike a debate over 18th century authors, many people profiled in wikipedia (and their work) are still alive.
So, do you beg others to fix the error, or do you do as intended by the originators of wikipedia and fix it yourself?
And what if the entry has been assembled by someone hostile to you - say your ex-husband or a stalker? Is it OK for them to write their own "spin" on you when they are obviously biased as well?
And what about people who have no personal knowledge of you, your work, or your career, yet presume to write about it? How is their veracity superior? Why should they merit any consideration at all?
Perhaps this little episode with Auren indicates a need to examine why it is OK for friends, enemies and those with private agendas to write personal bios on wikipedia but the person himself is an object of ridicule when he objects to it or wishes to make corrections.
After all, even the accused is allowed the right to make a defense in our society, right? :-)

Peter · 2 years ago

is anyone here suggesting that Auren's kickin it with Bush and Brownback and all sorts of shady racist characters is not relevant to who he is as a person? i mean, it _is_ a wikipedia entry, innit?

i didn't like that auren guy from the first time i realized he was hanging with George, and it turns out i was right. he's up to his eyes in Republican slush money. public relations contracts. it's all horrific stuff, and it should all be mentioned in his wikipedia entry. and his acting as an imposter should and will be in any future wikipedia entry - i'll see to it.

as atrios would say, "Nice work...if you can get it." and apparently, Auren can.

how pathetic is that? erasing a wiki entry cause you got caught lying? and this guy is gonna sell online reputation services. perfect Republican. it's like having Mark Foley as head of the child sex predators group in the House. brilliant.