Talk:Carl Malamud

References, but I can't verify them

According to the Internet radio article, the following references confirm the claim that Malamud had the first Internet radio station:

• "Cable company is set to plug into Internet". The Wall Street Journal. August 24, 1993. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
• "Peering Out a 'Real Time' Window". New York Times. February 8, 1995. Retrieved 2008-05-13.

However, I can't reach these - they require login to Proquest, which I don't have. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Public Printer of the United States bid

It seems like Carl's bid to become Public Printer of the United States is noteworthy, perhaps a mention of this and an external link to the Yes We Scan! page is in order? Sporkmonger (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sound reasonable - I came here looking for the current status of that bid ... --141.3.48.218 (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference to the Public Printer campaign (and changed one "Carl" to "Malamud", and changed "victories" to "achievements" because "victories" sounded a little promotional). dweinberger (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I came back today to fix an error I introduced and found it had already been fixed. Thanks! But, i spoke with Carl Malamud today and found out that he's given up on his Public Printer campaign. So, I put it in the past tense, and provided a brief description of his current project, Law.gov. dweinberger (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE 2015?

This link http://ia801504.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gand.218354/gov.uscourts.gand.218354.docket.html cite 2015's events of the process... There are some extert to "translate" the decisions? --Krauss (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: this PDF is item 1 there, and "human-readable", but also is dificult to undertand the judicial process.

Excellent biography

• Levy, Steven (12 September 2016), Carl Malamud has Standards, Backchannel, retrieved 13 September 2016

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

"Terrorism" cite

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)

• I have independently duplicated this same chain of research. Wikipedia has promulgated a falsehood for approximately 4 years. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This original research is interesting but doesn't directly disprove the claim. Georgia's complaint says «form of “terrorism”» while your very research shows he wrote «standards terrorism». Suppressing a qualifier is not innocuous, even without mentioning the change in meaning of the words post 2001-09-11 and the difference in context (witty book vs. official document of an entity with law enforcement powers). Otherwise, it would be fine to accuse me of desertion (punished «by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct») just because I wrote about my spiritual desertion of the Roman church. Nemo 20:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I've incorporated the cited information to clarify the source of the comparison to terrorism. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Carl Malamud versus Public.Resource.org

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)

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)

This article, not a stub anymore?

Why is this article rated as a stub? Toandanel49 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Toandanel49: It must be an error, I re-rated it as C class. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)