Can you believe this? Just like that … completely blocked.

Even more incredible are the layers of intricate mazes, links, & instructions (difficult by design I assume) required for one to challenge the anonymous goober who got the account suspended in the first place.

This is a real revelation. If you’re like me, you have used Wikipedia and had no idea what silliness goes on behind the scenes.

Previously, I liked the site and had never thought much about the people who are admins there. It’s a real study in personality disorders and the inevitable larger-than-life egos that ”admin privileges” often foster. At Wikipedia, you’ll find aspiring scholars with a C+ aptitude.

Ultimately, domaining should not be redirected to cybersquatting, and currently … it isn’t (thankfully). I would not be at all surprised if a single individual sabotages all the hard work that has gone into this effort. Wikipedia operates with pseudo journalistic integrity, and apparently is shaped by the opinion of a few literature majors who long for a ’position of authority’ and are infatuated with power.  

No offense to Lit Majors. The real culprit is anyone who cannot concede when they are wrong. I’m sure there are good people within the greater Wikipedia community. But, there are some rather serious & ingrained problems which are undermining the premise of quality one would presume exists there. “Discussing” content at Wikipedia has the back-and-forth flow of an argument between juveniles.

Thus far at Wikipedia, valid arguments on domaining are met with instant redirection to non-relevant points (known as change the subject because you’re losing the argument), or worse, people begin to pull out their opinion as “fact”, and repeat it 4 times … as if repeating it will somehow make it magically true. Believe me, this is a tiring exercise to witness. And I saw it over and over as critics tried to discredit domain name investing with transparent & empty insults. The stench of envy filled the air.

I’ve contacted the two people who decided to suspend my account. I’m really curious if they’ll have the decency to engage me in conversation to further explain their decision.

Since the suspension is built on something which I know is false, it will be interesting to see what develops. I expect cowardice, and avoidance, from the two admins who froze my account. Engaging in “healthy debate” is something they are not yet ready for.

This process is a real peeling back of the layers at Wikipedia. I am finding a rotten core, sadly.

I keep waiting for a Wikipedia administrator to intervene and disallow further protests. Apparently, Wikipedia allow envious (and uninformed) protesters to throw eggs indefinitely.

I have posted a response to someone who claims domaining has no real purpose or shape, and who recommends to just merge it with domain name “speculation”. Below is my lesson in truth & common sense to the uniformed there. 

Merge is not Appropriate – Domain name “speculation” is one of many monetization techniques under the much larger umbrella of Domaining. People “speculate” on real estate, stock, art, thoroughbred horses. They also invest. They also develop. They also partner. They devise business plans & take on angel investors. They hire employees to launch internet companies built around their domain investments. They go in any number of varied directions as they explore their many revenue generating alternatives. That is what domainers do on a daily basis. It is a mature, diverse business which has continually expanded year after year. It’s a fact. It cannot be contested.

The ”Domaining” page will evolve with the continued expansion & success of the domain name industry. Many components and elements can be added to the page as the industry continues maturing into new areas and attracting many thousands of enthusiasts. This is something which Wikipedia users will enjoy and find educational.

The world of domaining is extremely well-developed as evidenced by the presence of established online companies dedicated specifically to the business of domaining. A mere redirection to domain name “speculation” is the equivalent of forwarding the broad category of “law” to a page on “divorce law”. It presumes that “divorce law” somehow represents everything there is to know about all law. ”’Speculation”’, by definition, is to buy and sell with the expectation of a quick or very large profit. Wikipedia include in their definition a “low margin of safety” and “significant risk of loss of the principal investment”. There is no doubt that such an approach exists, but using this narrow definition to encompass all of investing is completely inappropriate whether the object of the investment is real estate, gold, or domain names.

Speculation is by nature considered a more risky proposition, and simply does not account for proven, thoroughly researched business models. Business models that are applied in real estate, domain names, stocks, and an endless variety of other investment vehicles. A recommendation to simply merge or forward to “speculation” reveals a very limited understanding of investing as an activity that occurs along a continuum … with speculation being a proportionally small segment narrowly located only at the extreme end of that investment continuum.

Domaining must stand as an independent page due its broad, all encompassing nature. Thank you.

Ron Jackson of DNJournal.com

The links (view them below) were added to the current discussion page at Wikipedia on “Domaining“. A small handful of mean-spirited posters have repeatedly submitted senseless comments and personal opinion there in their aim to get the domaining page deleted.

The domaining stories Ron provided links to are irrefutably superior & fact-based, and consequently obliterate the baseless accusations regurgitated by the troublemakers. For me, the real story here is … “What is Wikipedia?”

Is it a gossip column? Is it a flame-ridden chatroom frequented by angry teens? I have lost respect for Wikipedia having seen hard work both heavily filtered and repeatedly challenged by people who hide behind a faceless screen name and who launch one baseless accusation after another. To Wikipedia’s credit, they include an interesting comment from journalist, John Seigenthaler on the Wikipedia page about “Wikipedia“.

On the Wikipedia page, Seigenthaler is quoted as having described Wikipedia as  …

a flawed and irresponsible research tool.

One has to wonder.

Domain Industry Stories

1. http://www.entrepreneur.com/startingabusiness/businessideas/article195880.html
2. http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/10/domains-flip-aftermarket-tech-ebiz-cz_cf_0811domains.html
3. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_26/b4040059.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_technology
4. http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/29/technology/nextbigforeign.biz2/
5. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113200310765396752-FYV6dsilRS0N1fsiVu_bLf_5nI8_20061116.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
6. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122844055171581735.html
7. http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/07/30/online_domain_name_game_yields_real_profits_for_virtual_brokers/
8. http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2006/02/13/story2.html
9. http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/Domain-Name-Business-Booming-in-Post-Dot-Com-Era-129003WWAIE9.xhtml?wlc=1249613955&wlc=1249642500

Update

My article, which contained abundant resources and links, has been pared down to about 10 or 20% of its original content. However, there is now a good chance that domaining and domainers will no longer be redirected to “cybersquatting”. Below is my letter to Wikipedia admins on their renewed interest in working with me on defining “domaining” and representing more accurately the reputation of those who work in and around the domain name industry. Please help me, if you will, to get the message out.

My Response To Wikipedia Admins & Content Reviewers

I would like to respond with a few comments. I do understand that the number of links I submitted in the Domaining article was excessive. I was trying to provide a picture of the domain industry, and domainers, as a legitimate group who are ethical, well-organized and who do not deserve to be associated with the crime of cybersquatting. While my comments were perceived as “biased” by one Wikipedia commenter, I can only say that his perception is a projection, and a gross overgeneralization which itself cannot be justified.

We all know that cybersquatting exists and is wrong, but if one were to visit the domainer sites and tradeshows, reference our trade associations, and work within the greater industry, then you would see just how unjust it is that the whole domain name industry has been characterized at Wikipedia as cybersquatters or scammers. Ironically, I find those statements to be born of extreme ignorance of our industry and heavily injected with personal bias against all people who invest in domain names for whatever reasons.

I know that what I am sharing here is factual and objective, not merely subjective, but it is hard to prove a negative, i.e. that the majority of domainers don’t engage in cybersquatting. This is why I tried to provide so many links … so that I could provide Wikipedia staff, and eventually their users, with the names and faces of real people, real businesses, and a greater context around our industry that has absolutely nothing to do with cybersquatting.

An example for the reviewers of Wikipedia which will hopefully illustrate my point. Suppose one Wikipedia administrator was convicted of a terrible crime, and by association all wikipedia admins suddenly began being accused of the same terrible crimes and were castigated publicly. For one, we know that you are not responsible for the bad acts of another person, and ultimately his poor choices do not reflect on you personally or negate all of the good will and collective hard work done at Wikipedia. This parallels the damage that was being done by redirecting domaining and domainers to cybersquatting. The bad acts of a relative minority were being used to humiliate and disparage a large group of people who have worked ethically and responsibly for years, and always within the law and within their rights of domain name registration.

Thank you for being willing to work with me on this important subject. Domainers, as a large group, are basically investors, internet enthusiasts, and people who have careers in a variety of fields. They are reasonable people with families, the same hopes and dreams as everyone else. And moreover, have notable achievements in life. The extensive list of domainers I provided to you, and their associated websites (in my original submission), are a small representative sample of the quality of individuals involved in the domain name industry. One of my investment partners is a licensed psychiatrist working everyday to help people with mental health disorders. Another of my domainer friends heads a non-profit fund raising organization. Yet another is a professor of economics at a major university. Many of my peers are attorneys, stay at home moms, realtors, high-level techies, college students, you name it. This diverse group of people interested in domaining are everyday people with intact values and a guiding set of principles that govern their choices in life. And they have specifically avoided internet crimes and cybersquatting. I know this on a personal level which is why I was so incensed and outraged that a couple of Wikipedia admins took it upon themselves to publicly denigrate so many reputable people.

Thanks again for considering these comments, and for allowing me a voice on this critical issue.

Addendum: Another reason I included so many industry links is I want the Domaining page to be an actual resource for anyone who searches on domaining and is interested in learning more about it. The links I provided you are high quality, relevant, and central to understanding the domain name industry. Please consider allowing me to perhaps place the links at the bottom of the article such that Wikipedia users will have a great resource guide for learning.

I am extremely incensed at the decision of a few to assume that all domain name investors are somehow guilty of cybersquatting. At this point, it’s about righting a terrible injustice. I have befriended domainers from all walks of life and from all around the world. Most of which have never registered a trademark infringing domain name.

As of yet, outcome undetermined. It’s about Wikipedia’s credibility as a true authoritative resource. And the jury is out right now.