Talk:Aaron Swartz/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Depression

Reason why this talk page section was restored
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page section was restored from the archives because the restoring editor believes it addresses an important but unresolved issue. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This article badly needs some well-sourced discussion of Swartz's depression and possible bipolar disorder. Currently the article does not even mention it other than to lightly imply (via a footnote) that he was not depressed. Given that the subject committed suicide over a six-month prison term, I'd say that's a rather significant explanatory gap.

More generally, this article has a bit of an "evil government killed this poor boy" tone to it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We refer to the Atlantic Monthly profile, which I believe is careful to restrict itself to the offering the opinion of his partner that Swartz was depressed. This is not a diagnosis, of course; lots of people’s spouses and partners may casually say they are depressed or anxious, but that is neither here nor there. I know of no source for bipolar disorder.

In fact, to the extent that your comment above appears to state that an individual suffered from a mental disorder, it itself raises a BLP (or rather a BRD) issue; you might want to amend it. I disagree with your (highly NPOV) contention that the article is not neutral, and if you review its (extensive) talk page history you will find the current language arose from extensive discussion. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Swartz himself and numerous reliable sources referred to his depression in published writings. In 2007 he wrote a blog post that was interpreted by many as a suicide note, leading his Reddit business partner to have the police break down his apartment door trying to rescue him. NY Mag refers to his "suicidal depression". My mention of bipolar disorder refers to speculation in a New Republic article.

Extensive discussion does not guarantee that an article will be free from POV problems. Also: BLP? BRD? Huh?

An example of my concern over POV problems:

"Facing almost certain incarceration for alleged offenses about which the victims, M.I.T. and JSTOR, declined to pursue civil litigation, Swartz committed suicide on January 11, 2013."

Here we've got WP using its editorial voice to express an unsourced view both blaming the prosecutors for his suicide and implying they were wrong to prosecute him. That's two or three big problems at once. With such a radioactive topic, we need attributed, sourced opinions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)I see that you're leaving your assertion of mental illness intact. If you really don't want to change it, IMHO this should be brought to the attention of AN/I without delay. For sourcing on "almost certain", see Lessig, also the subject's attorney. For MIT and JSTOR, see Mass Lawyers Weekly and the Abelson report. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am now thoroughly confused and I don't even know what you're threatening to report me for at AN/I.

I certainly am not disputing the factual proposition that Swartz faced "almost certain" jail time. He was going to end up incarcerated no matter what. But I think my previous comment made clear that this is not the specific nature of my concern. Rather, the WP article is making a thinly veiled accusation in its editorial voice. We just don't do that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me be precise. You're asserting without evidence in a BRD that the subject suffered from a specific mental illness. (You also assert above that you know that the subject would have been convicted, which we cannot assert. Neither are appropriate, as you well know. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"BRD" generally refers to "Bold, Revert, Discuss", so I need you to be a little more precise about what you mean. I looked in vain for any policy on "Biography of Recently Dead" people and found nothing, other than some admonitions about not assuming without evidence that someone is dead unless they are 115 years old. And I'm not aware of any inappropriateness of my comments above. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! I meant BRD -- biography of a recently deceased person. Many of the caveats extended to BLPs are also extended to recently dead people . It is (to some extent) true in law that you cannot libel someone who is dead and that they, being dead, cannot sue Wikipedia for defamation. But defamation is always wrong, and it's especially wrong in the case of near contemporaries. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Great. But nobody's doing (or suggesting) anything that would be libel if Swartz were alive. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion of his possible depression, carefully worded as suggested earlier [1] (where i list several sources) -- and, as I also stated then, this has not been discussed much at this talk page. User:MB replied then in a rather snarky and vague manner, apparently as self-appointed protector of this article. (On that note, and a possible COI issue, googling both names brings up alot of blog posts...) El duderino ^(abides) 10:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack, much? Ad hominem? I'm not entirely sure how one can possibly have a COI with a dead person, but I certainly don't. I have indeed written about the subject, as well as a fair number of other subjects; that's what writers do. Perhaps you have written something about something, too? If not, do you imagine that's that a good thing? In any case, speculating about a recently-deceased person's undiagnosed mental illness is both OR (and BRD at that) and unencyclopedic. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no speculation or OR being proposed, nor were Dude's comments about possible COI inappropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion of widely reported fact of AS's depression, as sourced by WP:RS noted above (in linked Talk archive); and with strict adherence to other relevant WP policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, etc., including decent respect and common sense.

This is encyclopedic knowledge. (It could even be life-saving knowledge for some awestruck young geek reader at similar risk.) No speculation or diagnosis or original research implied or required. As far as WP:BLP concerns as they apply to recently deceased, see coverage of Philip Seymour Hoffman for an example of how well-documented facts of his drug addiction were correctly handled in that article - source citations for every sentence addressing the issue. The recently dead are not beyond the reach of factual documentation.

We can do the same with the testimonies of the many witnesses to his depression. A few sentences and several sources should do it. I would order them: self report, family, friends, lawyers, for reasons obvious below.

After establishing wide consensus on his battles with (unspecified type of apparently untreated) depression, simply juxtapose two well-documented factoids and let reader draw their own conclusions. (Or indulge in original research and preface with <speculation spoiler alert!> <unlicensed practice of psychiatric forensics!> tags and have at it.) Two possible contributing triggers of suicidal depression, both just two days before his January 11, 2013 death:

1. prosecution rejection of defense counter offer (Cullen, Boston Globe January 15, 2013 is good source, as 3 of his lawyers also weigh in on his depression in that article; another source needed for pinning January 9 as date of rejection) (addenda: ref name AP_20130114 in case article adds last lawyer's testimony of depression & importantly adds Jan. 9 as date of rejection - see next addenda for link)
2. JSTOR's announcement of release to public of 4.5 million articles on same day (Library Journal source, January 9, 2013, also referenced in WP article on JSTOR case).

His realization of the prosecutor's dedication to his actually doing time with multiple felony convictions, coupled with his perception of his now Pyrrhic victory over JSTOR's pay wall access policies, may well have been too much for him to bear at once. </unlicensed forensic psychiatry>

The coincidence of these two blows strike me as particularly significant, but I've seen nothing in print on that topic. We don't need to connect the dots or interpolate original research, we just need to stick to the sourced facts and put them in their well-ordered place: in this article.

(addenda re: sources for above. I've added archive.org links to 3 ref names in United States v. Aaron Swartz, as of now, footnote #s 46, 47, 48: 'cullen', 'AP_20130114' & 'LibraryJournal' )

Let's see a draft here and get something resembling consensus so we can move forward without rehashing this ad infinitum. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin attention please: The original poster revives this dead thread from August 2014 for fresh discussion. They believe the subject suffered from a mental illness; our reliable sources have been scrupulous to restrict any mention of possible mental illness to the informal concerns of friends and associates. Assertions about the subject’s medical condition or history must, of course, be carefully limited to what is described in reliable sources. This discussion is rife with violations of BLP (in this case a recently deceased person) and WP:OR. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark, surely you must realize that the long hiatus in posting was at least in part due to your hostile and almost threatening comments, as well as your refusal to engage others who were attempting to engage you. As seen above, there was nothing but discussion of reliable sources and how to responsibly treat the question of Swartz's mental illness (or, if you insist, lack thereof). There were no BLP violations, either intended or actual, even if we count Swartz under the post-mortem "grace period" afforded by BLP. Please, you've got to dial down your tone. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

edit i had made

@Bbb23:
"poorly sourced and poorly crafted"
i'm french, you can do a better sentence if you want, i have not reformulate, i had just put what the sources said (my english is too bad to permit me to reformulate).

• Aaron says the vast majority of Wikipedia was created by new editors, mostly people who didn't even bother to create accounts, adding a couple sentences here and there and that Wales looked at the number of changes each user made to Wikipedia, but didn't look at the size of the change.
  

->the reference i had put say that: the vast majority of Wikipedia was created by new editors, mostly people who didn't even bother to create accounts, adding a couple sentences here and there. How did Wales make such a big mistake? He looked at the number of changes each user made to Wikipedia, but didn't look at the size of the change.
->if you read this paragraph of the article wikipedia on aaron here: Swartz volunteered as an editor at Wikipedia, and in 2006, he ran unsuccessfully for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. Also in 2006, Swartz wrote an analysis of how Wikipedia articles are written, and concluded that the bulk of the actual content comes from tens of thousands of occasional contributors, or "outsiders", each of whom may not make many other contributions to the site, while a core group of 500 to 1,000 regular editors tend to correct spelling and other formatting errors.[52] According to Swartz: "the formatters aid the contributors, not the other way around."[52][53]
->the reference 52 of the article is a website of aaron. ->https://aaronsw.jottit.com/ is a web site of aaron too. (aaron has created jottit, it is written in the article wikipedia) . If you read "https://aaronsw.jottit.com/howtoget" on what he says about wikipedia correspond of what he says in reference 52 "http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia" I found the user who had contributed it was not an active user of the site. They generally had made less than 50 edits (typically around 10), usually on related pages. Most never even bothered to create an account..

• The idea, to collect information on all the books in the world in one place, comes from Brewster Kahle, who founded the Internet Archive, which call Aaron to work with him on this project.

->aaron write this:

"But one day I got a call from Brewster Kahle. Brewster founded the Internet Archive, an incredible organization which tries to digitize everything it can get its hands on and put it all up on the Web. He said he wanted to get started on a project we'd talked about in the past. The idea was to collect information on all the books in the world in one place -- a free wiki. I got right to work and over the next couple months I began calling libraries, roping in programmers, working with a designer, and doing all sorts of other odd jobs to get the site online. That project ended up becoming Open Library and a demo version is now up at demo.openlibrary.org. Much of it was built by a very talented Indian programmer: Anand Chitipothu.".

His name on wikipedia was aaronsw (alias i had put). Virgil_Griffith has his pseudo on wikipedia put in the box. I think, either the both, either none. But one yes and not the other, i'd like you explain me.

I'm not often on wiki en so, if you change of mind, you can add reformulating what i had putted.
In all cases, i would have a look here the next time i come to see your response. Vatadoshu^french 22:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's put aside the "poorly crafted" because if it had been otherwise acceptable, I could have rewritten it. The central problem is the source, which is a blog and arguable WP:SELFPUB. Normally, that's not considered a reliable source. Perhaps if you had a secondary source, i.e., a reputable newspaper or magazine, we might able to put something together.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23

• "He also helped the Internet Archive’s Brewster Kahle launch Open Library, an ambitious effort to create a landing page for every book in existence." http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/02/aaron_swartz_he_wanted_to_save_the_world_why_couldn_t_he_save_himself.single.html
• "who did open library: aaron swarz, khahe, and others" https://books.google.fr/books?id=Z64cAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Brewster+Kahle+aaron+swartz+open+library&source=bl&ots=RFflvDrLhj&sig=9lk-xjoA87P86YfiGYU1XmWE_2o&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=N9ByVbHmNcTtUqmGgJgO&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Brewster%20Kahle%20aaron%20swartz%20open%20library&f=false

"Aaron worked on projects he thought mattered," says Brewster Kahle, an Internet-freedom advocate who recruited Swartz to work on Open Library, a project that set out to make a Web page for every book ever published""

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-brilliant-life-and-tragic-death-of-aaron-swartz-20130215#ixzz3cHMRDWOq.

Vatadoshu^french 19:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

OpenLibrary/LoC history

I found another relevant source (self-published, but still useful) regarding the early history of OpenLibrary and where the Library of Congress data came from. This post from Scriblio: https://web.archive.org/web/20070701045054/http://about.scriblio.net/scribbles/73 . Hope this helps! JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aaron Swartz. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://arsdigita.org/prize/2000/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aaron Swartz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rememberaaronsw.tumblr.com/post/40372208044/official-statement-from-the-family-and-partner-of-aaron
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112102251/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h2454/ to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h2454/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112102253/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-s1196/ to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-s1196/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aaron Swartz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112102251/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h2454/ to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h2454/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza

This addition added a reference to a film by Dinesh D'Souza, referencing Swartz. The trouble is that I see this film as coatracking Swartz, not being about him, or being previously or otherwise aligned to his viewpoints.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aaron Swartz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://dk.linkedin.com/in/simoncarstensen
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://watchdog.net/about/team
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rememberaaronsw.tumblr.com/post/40372208044/official-statement-from-the-family-and-partner-of-aaron
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://grayson.house.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/330-grayson-screens-award-winning-killswitch-documentary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121304121000/http://mit.edu/ to http://mit.edu/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wh.gov/E3v1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040402182332/http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ to http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

New Lessig Interview

Some great reflections by Lessig on their relationship and the effect Aaron had on his life and career trajectory:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/lawrence-lessig-aaron-swartz/537693/

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

RDF/XML

Why does this article single out Aaron to take the blame for RDF/XML? He did so much more work with RDF and RSS, it's a huge misunderstanding to see this as "RDF/XML". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

D'Souza film

Re these re-additions [2][3][4]

Does Dinesh D'Souza's 2014 documentary America: Imagine the World Without Her belong here? It's a film about D'Souza, not Swartz. It hangs onto Swartz' coat tails horribly as an apologia for D'Souza's own run-ins with the law. This is a filmaker highjacking someone who was no political fellow traveller of his, in order to try and collect his internet-liberal and libertarian followers. WP shouldn't be playing along with this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Concur. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aaron Swartz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120182634/http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986 to http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2013/1/14/freedom_to_connect_aaron_swartz_1986
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140803134036/http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia to http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115005713/http://pdftribute.net/ to http://pdftribute.net/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130217100217/http://techblogs.mit.edu/news/2013/01/mit-email-was-down-for-10-hours-last-night-mystery-hunt-temporarily-affected/ to http://techblogs.mit.edu/news/2013/01/mit-email-was-down-for-10-hours-last-night-mystery-hunt-temporarily-affected/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aaron Swartz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017090350/http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/514298/20131016/securedrop-aaron-swartz-wikileaks-style-anonymous-submission.htm to http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/514298/20131016/securedrop-aaron-swartz-wikileaks-style-anonymous-submission.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017162802/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-26/lifestyle/40864364_1_aaron-swartz-art-gallery-gesture to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-26/lifestyle/40864364_1_aaron-swartz-art-gallery-gesture
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wh.gov/Ex1n

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting History: Wikileaks

A history that has been all but erased; the real reasons Aaron Swartz was an enemy of the State: "He was working directly with them." Source: https://contraspin.co.nz/beingjulianassange - --87.170.201.201 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

His book

Someone could write an article about his unfinished book? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ethanpet113 (talk · contribs) 04:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have begun review and will use the section numbers of the relevant criteria as shorthand for which criteria is being evaluated.

Preliminary evaluation

1. Writing
   1. Contents:There do not appear to be any serious errors, nor would I consider the prose to be noteworthy. They are informative but terse.
   2. Layout and words to watch: I am concerned about the number of sections and paragraphs which contain as little as one sentence MOS:PARA in particular the section "open access", a cursory glance shows no unattributed quotes, but the circumstances of his death are clearly contentious so I will have to take some time to evaluate that the any loaded statements are well attributed. Since this is time consuming I will defer this until other easier criteria have been met or failed.
2. Verifiability:Some citations such as those for "Patriot of the web", the page for Swartz memorial and blog posts may fail WP:UGC, pending results from citation bot
3. Broad: Pretty focused and sufficient coverage of the person's life.
4. Neutral: There are some accusations that the prosecutor in the case which led to his suicide were unduly harsh, but little coverage of any response to from either the prosecutors or the state. Or any discussion of the follow-up leading to the bills mentioned later in the article.
5. Stable: This article has had some wholesale reverts about 2 to 3 times a month, not an edit war, but not what I would call stable.
6. Illustrated:Yes

Current conclusions This article does not meet the criteria for good article because it does not flow having several one line paragraphs just inserted in the appropriate section, rather than consistent smooth flowing prose. It seems to be fairly verifiable but is somewhat lopsided given the extreme circumstances of the subject's death. Some citations may be inappropriate according to wikipedia's policies on user generated and self published content, although some leeway is allowed for primary sources pertaining to the main subject of the article. Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Closing, no timely feedback from nominater Ethanpet113 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia participation

@Nemo bis: I don't see the creation of a person's Wikipedia account and the topics of their Wikipedia edits as something deserving of being in a Wikipedia article. It's just not notable. Plus, the secondary source given is from a blog by a Wikipedia editors about Wikipedia editors which seems hardly significant... MarkH21 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. While it might be notable to us, the Wiki community, here on talk pages, it's a different story in articles. Jonathunder (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep it in. Aaron's great interest was in publishing free content via the web. Although WP wasn't a big part of this (he favoured other platforms) it is still an important part of this. One of the obvious questions which any future historian of the web would ask about him is, "He was active at the same time, was he involved with WP?" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I would still disagree though. His interest in publishing free content can be attested by his other contributions and his role strictly as a Wikipedia editor is not significant here. MarkH21 (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's just impossible to mention his run for the WMF board and his article on Wikipedia participation without saying he had been involved in Wikipedia for years. Otherwise you're artificially changing the story from "insightful insider" to "random passer-by seeks visibility". We could remove or summarise the entire Wikipedia section, no opinion on that. The choice should be based on sources, though. Nemo 17:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, well in that case I would favor deletion of the entire section. The only secondary source I could find on his edit-counting blog post was the summary given on Business Insider. Otherwise, the section is based on primary sources and the Wikipedian blog, doesn't seem particularly significant, and distracts from the more significant contributions in an already-long article. MarkH21 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The subject's Wikipedia participation is noteworthy in a biographical context (notability does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article). This content should be retained.- MrX 🖋 12:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, nobody argued that WP:N determines the content. However, it really doesn't seem noteworthy in a biographical context to anyone except part of the Wikipedia community. Otherwise we might as well find everyone who has a Wikipedia page and add when they created their accounts on Wikipedia and other sites. MarkH21 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

His writing about Wikipedia published elsewhere could be included, and perhaps his unsuccessful bid for the board, but work as an ordinary volunteer editor doesn't belong in this article. Jonathunder (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Should people's reaction to his death be part of this article or in a separate one?

It seems a majority of the sections are not about Aaron himself, rather what people did in his name. Does this belong to the biography? Should it be put in a different article? Viztor (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Note, I've removed the RfC tag here since there was no previous discussion about this before the RfC was started (see link for more info). (Ping for Viztor, who started it). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Puddleglum2.0 (talk · contribs) 20:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. :-) Puddleglum2.0 (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Note: Having contrasted this article with the [article criteria], I have deemed this article to be worthy of GA status. Puddleglum2.0 (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0 has withdrawn this good article review. The Aaron Swartz article is being sent back to the good article nominations queue, and editors are welcome to review it for compliance with the good article criteria using these instructions. — Newslinger talk 05:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 10:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Viztor:, I'll be reading and reviewing this article shortly. Lizzy (talk 10:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Assuming the nominator or other editors see this.. some comments below. These are glaring issues which should be addressed.

• The lead section needs 3 or 4 succinct paragraphs summarising the biography.
• Various sentences with lots of citations, eg. [119][120][121][122]. This makes reading and editing tricky. Please can these be reviewed and edited as appropriate.
• "Death, funeral, and memorial gatherings" could be called "Death and memorials". This section should be condensed into one without the sub-headings.
• "Response" section - consider reducing the number of sub-headings. I don't think one word headings provide enough context.
• Various issues in prose - please use consistent paragraphs. Avoid one line/two lines, and some are too big (eg. Open Access section)
• "Media" section - I think this section contains too much detail and deviates off-topic. How relevant is it? Can we reduce it?

Thanks, Just Lizzy^(talk) 18:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Nominator hasn't been online since August and no changes to the article have been made. Closing this for now. Should be renominated when ready. Just Lizzy^(talk) 16:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories? What conspiracy theories?"

You know, I don't really believe in one thing or the other when it comes to weather Schwartz actually killed himself. I can never know for certain because I was not there. However, omitting the large and active discussion about his death shortly after it happened from the official history is well...Orwellian.

The public reaction to his death included conspiracy theories. Overall, the discussion of his death was a referendum on the future of the free internet and what his death meant. Acknowledging the discussion does not endorse its most radical theories. His death was discussed by many people and this discussion was important.

Many moons ago, this site was dedicated to presenting the sides of the event itself and its discussion amongst the media, internet, and society. I cherished this site growing up because more than just getting the "Encyclopedic" facts on an event, I managed to gain perspective on the subject of the article in question.

I've seen articles edited to minimize or subtly discredit desperate theories concerning its subject. I've seen that all the time since I first began viewing Wikipedia in 2007.

But now, I see these whole sections being gutted and omitted from articles. I see articles gutted of not only the information on the page, but talk pages as well.

Winston clipping news articles and pictures and sending it down the memory hole to be incinerated.

I remember this article briefly once discussing this important discussion.

Now I feel like the article was edited to give the impression no conspiracy theories arose after his death. The public discussion was minute. Anyone who says they remember talking about how scared they were for the security of the internet after these events clearly was just being hyperbolic and malreporting. No one was really having that discussion based on this article.

"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjohnson1775 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Redbrick Solutions

Hi @ReasonableCanadian. Related to the name of the company run by Alexis Ohanian and Steve Huffman when reddit was originally incubated (from the intro paragraph). In this techcruch video, now archived, is is explained that, before reddit was created,

"[Steve] Huffman wanted to make a phone system to order subs while he was pumping gas at a local gas stand. Ohanian calls a lawyer and they formed a company called RedBrick Solutions, because Charlottesville is full of red brick buildings."

In turn, it was that company (RedBrick Solutions) that existed when Ohanian and Huffman brought their proposal to Paul Graham. This can be cross referenced based on the book "We Are the Nerds: The Birth and Tumultuous Life of Reddit, the Internet's Culture Laboratory"

"Ohanian followed the playbook he’d learned in his business courses: market research and due diligence. He opened an account at Bank of America and filed papers for Redbrick Solutions, LLC, a name inspired by Charlottesville’s architecture that he figured sounded more official than “MMM.” Ohanian’s “market research,” however, mostly involved hoofing around Charlottesville, strutting into local shops and talking to business owners. He’d give them the pitch and shake hands that they’d try it out, someday." (Page 4)

A.Panda27 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@A.Panda27: Sorry, mistakes happen (though I try to make as few as possible) and in this case this fit with usual patterns of less reasonable people deliberately introducing incorrect information (especially given that this involved a popular website...). Anyway, I'll trust you on this, you can add it in the article if you haven't already done so. Cheers (and to further constructive collaboration), RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Is any detailed information about The Info Network available?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop trying to cover up the fact that Aaron Swartz was Assassinated.

Stop trying to cover up the fact that Aaron Swartz was Assassinated. 50.238.205.34 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have to back up that assertion? If you don't have any, then it cannot be included as content here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean Pretty sure they're making it up. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Arrest/Release

It is not clear when has he released from arrest, only arrest date is mentioned, but not mentioned when and how was he released (guarded at home? etc.) JSoos (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

In new "WikiLeaks" section change sentence "In January 2013 shortly after he died, WikiLeaks said that Aaron Swartz had helped WikiLeaks and talked to talked Julian Assange in 2010 and 2011." to

In January 2013 shortly after he died, WikiLeaks said that Aaron Swartz helped WikiLeaks and talked to Julian Assange in 2010 and 2011. Eruhinim (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The current version seems better to me. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Done: Doesn’t seem likely that “talked to talked Julian” was intended - have removed the duplicate ‘talked’ from the sentence as suggested. Bonusballs (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

Change targetted to targeted in the WikiLeaks section 192.76.8.72 (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done (diff) DanCherek (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2023

Change http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/abs/10.2200/S00481ED1V01Y201302WBE005 to https://www.morganclaypoolpublishers.com/catalog_Orig/9781627051699_WEB.pdf for the "Aaron Swartz's A Programmable Web: An Unfinished Work" publication link. Old link gives 'page not found error. NotEvenDreams (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done AnnaMankad (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)