Wikipedia Labeling All Domainers as Cybersquatters

[Banned: broe-foe]

What's interesting is how Ron Jackson becomes indignant and protective of domainers' reputations in this case, while throughout the year he highlights and glorifies typosquatters and other ethically-challenged domainers because they've made a bundle of cash squatting, hoarding, and manipulating domain auctions.

Jackson's righteous indignation would have more credibility if he was truly fair and balanced all year 'round. Knowing his track record, his article about this episode reads more like a joke now and smells like hypocricy.

[draggar]

Positive News: Wikipedia are now displaying the Domaining page, and it no longer redirects to cybersquatting!

The term, Domainer, also goes to the new Domaining page. Domainers, the plural, is still improperly directed to cybersquatting, but a request has been submitted to forward "Domainers" as well to the domaining page.

Thanks to everyone who showed interest in this issue, and who expressed their support and were willing to become involved.

Great job!!

[Leading Names]

Positive News: Wikipedia are now displaying the Domaining page, and it no longer redirects to cybersquatting!

The term, Domainer, also goes to the new Domaining page. Domainers, the plural, is still improperly directed to cybersquatting, but a request has been submitted to forward "Domainers" as well to the domaining page.

Thanks to everyone who showed interest in this issue, and who expressed their support and were willing to become involved.

That's excellent news – congratulations and thanks

- Rob

[hugegrowth]

Good work to whoever was involved in getting this change!

[nameadvertising.com]

Carlton single-handedly made more of a difference to Domaining in one week than those sluts who do nothing but hold propaganda meetings selling overpriced names to unsuspecting investors did any over the years.

It goes to show, those big registrars, auction houses and glorified success stories have no desire to change the status-quo. They are least bit affected.

Who cares how much money anyone makes? I respect the individual who brings about meaningful change.

In my book - Carlton is THE man.

[ecomindia]

My son should say .. "Wow! you are a domainer too!" instead of "Ho! Are you a domainer?"

Yes, like to thanks all the domainers who have shown concern and raised it here . being a part of it, I am proud to be with you all.

[Gerry]

Great effort, Carlton.

[fundraiser]

Great effort, Carlton.

Agree completely. Anyone who knows him is not at all surprised he simply got it done.

[Banned: democrat]

a domainer.. I would say perhaps a business development consultant. As there are many aspects to domains.

Although, Chris.. I think you are a great guy but seriously, do you like doing what you do? You are making comparisons that are so demeaning and vulgar, I mean do you feel like that is how we should compare ourselves.. Why you are making these comparisons makes me question whether you like doing what you do.

When I saw those comparisons, I couldn't help but put myself in the shoes of what I THINK a pimp would be. There is no comparison..

A coalition, where we all stand up for what we do.. I think that domaining is becoming something unknown to us where people are getting more and more curious to exactly what this process entails. I have talked to many people who have thought after I gave a brief description of what I do. They think it is feasible but obviously not in the realm of interest.

I consider myself a e commerce business consultant as I tend to help business gain the maximum exposure to whatever their business may be. I don't deal with just domains, I deal with the development and the care of the domain.

Great discussion. If anyone wants to start something so that we can get the word out that this is a very valid business venture and it's here to stay as long as the internet is around.

Cheers!
Patty

[tristanperry]

Great work Carlton

It's a pitty how Wikipedia can potentially ruin the credibility of a multi-million dollar industry with a few clicks, but this is definitely a positive step

[carlton]

Many thanks to all of you for the support and encouraging words. After all is said and done, we have something in common that's worth fighting for. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who both enjoys and respects what we do!

[carlton]

Not much time to celebrate. A juvenile delinquent has already launched a challenge at Wikipedia, and requested that the new Domaining page be deleted.

Believe it or not, Wikipedia have indulged the miscreant and created a page where people can now discuss if the brand new page should be destroyed!

This is plain crazy, and reflects negatively on Wikipedia.

The link is here. You will immediately see the moron's screen name is 'Magicalthirty'. He has posted baseless insults all over. sedo did over 70 million in domain sales last year. How much evidence is required to justify the existence of domaining, domainers, and the legitimacy of the domain name industry?

[denny007]

I like this one
"domaining is not a legitimate business. It's shady, and is in fact just future cybersquatting"
It's like in the movie with Tom Cruise where they were able to detect future crimes and prevent them from happening YET the people who were supposed to do them were found guilty

[jmcc]

I like this one
"domaining is not a legitimate business. It's shady, and is in fact just future cybersquatting"
It's like in the movie with Tom Cruise where they were able to detect future crimes and prevent them from happening YET the people who were supposed to do them were found guilty

Some of the claims especially the one about domaining being cybersquatting on future trademarks seem like the ravings of someone who does not understand what cybersquatting is or how the trademarks system works. The logic is so disturbed that it is right up there with that idiotic claim by some US patent examiner in the 19th century that everything that could be invented had been invented.

The way things are going, I think that the Domaining article will get folded in with the Domain Name Speculation article.

Regards...jmcc

[carlton]

... the ravings of someone who does not understand what cybersquatting is or how the trademarks system works.

Well said.

The newest trick of the Domaining dissenters is to now ask that Wikipedia just merge domaining in with "Domain Name Speculation". They are aggressively fighting the existence of a Domaining page. Just defies common sense. Most surprising to me is the constant misstatement of facts by the dissenters.

Anway, I have posted a response explaining how and why it would not be proper to whittle Domaining down to just pure domain name speculation.

The response on my blog.

The response at Wikipedia - Look for "Merge is not Appropriate" near the bottom.

[jmcc]

Well said.

The newest trick of the Domaining dissenters is to now ask that Wikipedia just merge domaining in with "Domain Name Speculation". They are aggressively fighting the existence of a Domaining page. Just defies common sense. Most surprising to me is the constant misstatement of facts by the dissenters.

Anway, I have posted a response explaining how and why it would not be proper to whittle Domaining down to just pure domain name speculation.

The response on my blog.

The response at Wikipedia - Look for "Merge is not Appropriate" near the bottom.

It is getting confusing just trying to keep up with all this.

The domain name speculation article could do with some expansion and clarifications. That domain dispute decision in the references goes a long way towards clearing up some of the confusion on the domaining versus cybersquatting issue as it makes a clear reference to the limitation of the protection of US trademark law as applied to generic terms.

Regards...jmcc

[katherine]

Sometimes I am under the impression that pedophiles would get a fairer treatment from Wikipedia than domainers.

[ecomindia]

sadly, thats a fact Kate!
my nephew would have defined the domainers much better then wikipedia ...

what a plural version of a word can do.. learning from Wikepedia... domainer and domainers , any idea who are the editors for this page?

[mjnels]

The domain name speculation article could do with some expansion and clarifications. That domain dispute decision in the references goes a long way towards clearing up some of the confusion on the domaining versus cybersquatting issue as it makes a clear reference to the limitation of the protection of US trademark law as applied to generic terms.

Regards...jmcc

the Domain Name Speculation article used to re-direct to "Cybersquatting" a few years ago... i noticed it and posted a thread on NP.. shortly after somebody wrote a little blurb and the redirect was gone.. it went uncontested and is still there today.

[jmcc]

the Domain Name Speculation article used to re-direct to "Cybersquatting" a few years ago... i noticed it and posted a thread on NP.. shortly after somebody wrote a little blurb and the redirect was gone.. it went uncontested and is still there today.

The problem is that it is being caught in the crossfire of the Domaining article and the muppet who is trying to have the Domaining article deleted is also trying to get the Domain Name Speculation article deleted. However there seems to be more clear-cut support for this article. I'm still trying to figure out how domaining is cybersquatting against future trademarks. It is almost like saying that a dictionary is plagiarism of any literature that will be written in the future.

The problem for the Domaining article is that the term 'Domain Name Speculation' has a longer history and more references in academic publications and the media. The arguments equating domaining with cybersquatting are not based on any firm foundation and, in some cases, are based completely on personal opinion rather than facts. The only way to deal with this is to provide a neutral, fact based, explanation.

Regards...jmcc