Talk:Carl Malamud

message: According to the Internet radio article, the following references confirm the claim that Malamud had the first Internet radio station:
*
*
However, I can't reach these - they require login to Proquest, which I don't have. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, but I can't verify them 

message: *
I think this is the most thorough published summary of Malamud's work.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent biography 

message: The "terrorism" bit -- viz.,
The State of Georgia has sued Malamud for providing the Official Code of Georgia Annotated on his website, describing it as "a form of 'terrorism.'"[8][9] Georgia sells a version of the Code through LexisNexis.
is really misleading. Yes, the various journalistic outlets say that Georgia refers to what Malamud has done as terrorism. But look at the text of the complaint (linked from the AJC piece):
Defendant’s founder and president, Carl Malamud, has indicated that this type of strategy has been a successful form of “terrorism” that he has employed in the past to force government entities to publish documents on Malamud’s terms. See Exhibit 2.
This suggests that it's Malamud who called it terrorism. So chase down Exhibit 2; it's just this CJR piece, whence
To Malamud and many others, this highly unsatisfactory state of affairs represented a real barrier to innovation and transparency. So Malamud told Tony Rutkowski, a sympathetic ITU official, that he was prepared to scan the Blue Book and put it online, freely accessible to all by anonymous FTP. It was a threat to commit “standards terrorism,” as Malamud later put it; faced with it, the ITU agreed to hand over the standards on nine-track magnetic tape to Malamud for a three-month free download trial.
"Later put it" here is a link to exploring the Internet. Within there, the place where Malamud uses the word "terrorism" is this prologue, in which we find this:
Now, there are a couple of points worth keeping in mind. Tony was a senior lawyer for a powerful United Nations group that made lots of money selling these documents. While Tony certainly sympathized with my goals, I wasn't quite sure how he was going to react to this form of standards terrorism. Putting a lawyer on notice that you plan to relabel his corporate assets with a $0 price tag is kind of like putting Honda stickers on the motorcycles parked out side a Harley bar.
And there you have it: it's Malamud calling it terrorism, not Georgia. At no point does Georgia refer to what Malamud does as terrorism, apart from when it quotes Malamud himself.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaniel (talk • contribs) 2017-07-09T18:22:13 (UTC)
*   Wikipedia has promulgated  for approximately 4 years.  Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Terrorism" cite 

message: Carl Malamud established Public.Resource.Org. There are separate articles for each.
Most sources which talk about either one talk about the other. In Wikipedia this presents a challenge because our content should not be redundant, but also when we summarize sources they often report both the individual and the organization doing the same things.
I think that I advocate to resolve this by moving the programs and campaigns to the article on Public.Resource.Org. I think that all these projects are actually from the organization with Malamud being an agent within it. In this biographical article, we can report that Malamud was director of the organization and prominent as the face of many of its campaigns. By putting the activities in the organization article, I think that makes this more accurate and also prevents the splitting of the narratives. Thoughts from anyone else?  Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably possible, but some of the most famous Malamud projects were arguably not under the Public.Resource.Org umbrella because they were a collaboration with others too: for instance RECAP and the campaign Yes we scan. Ultimately this may matter little, so I say just go ahead and let's see how the articles shape up. Nemo 17:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Malamud versus Public.Resource.org 

message: Why is this article rated as a stub?  Toandanel49 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be an error, I re-rated it as C class.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article,  not a stub anymore?