Christopher Monsanto gives up trying to delete PL articles - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christopher_Monsanto <comment><USER3> Trying to delete stories? He nominated them for an open discussion to be decided by an admin. But that doesn't sound nearly as malicious. There are valid criticisms about the AfD process, but most people are blaming Chris as if he just walked by and deleted the articles on his own.

I fear that this issue has become less about fixing broken Wikipedia policies that encourage people like Chris to delete articles, and more about "teaching him a lesson".

The amount of ad hominem attacks in the original story is much higher than anything I'd expect from HN. And, considering HN is self-policed in a lot of ways, I think the issue needs to be pointed out.

<comment><USER4> The thing that _does_ annoy me is that he seems to agree that the policies need to be changed, but he followed them anyway. Sure, the policies are what ultimately need to be changed, but we also need to discourage blindly following the rules without thinking critically about them.

<comment><USER5> only after there was a backlash: he did was felt right, people failed to counter, an admin deleted stuff, people bitched and moaned --> therefore, fine if the system is not yielding the right results let's change it.

Chris seems to be really decent. even if he had a lapse in judgement, he embraces pleasant discussion. i'm embarrassed by the juvenille response: the meanness most of all, but also the unwillingness to see someone else's perspective or view efforts as a collaboration rather than a fight.

if a teammate messes up, you help them, you don't shoot them down.

<comment><USER6> His user page now has a passive-aggressive self congratulatory quote from a supporter.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christopher_Monsanto>

Lesson not learned. He's still seeking self-justification for removing knowledge from the public sphere. It's almost 1984-esque.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Here's a challenge, then, for the internet: instead of spamming my Wikipedia talk page (which I don't really care about), why don't you work on fixing WP's notability guideline for programming languages?"

Amen to that. Others have said it many times before and it is still true: Wikipedia's notability guidelines would benefit from being fixed. It's rather annoying to note that what this guy was doing was within the letter of the law but yet seemed so wrong. There is no way that the likes of Factor or Clean should be deleted from Wikipedia so the question becomes how can the guidelines be changed so that they don't allow it to happen.

<comment><AUTHOR> The most important rule of all:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules>

i.e., if something seems to fit in with the "letter of the law" but has no real benefit and lots of reasons not to do it, don't do it!

<comment><USER8> Sadly the mostly widely mis-used rule :) IAR is for daily usage, no real application in this case (because unfortunately the wider community will probably agree with deletions)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
      If anyone thought what I was doing was wrong, they could have just sent me a friendly message and I would have politely discussed the issue.

I guess he missed all the subtle indicators people left all over the place saying "Christopher, we are upset".

<comment><USER10> No, my understanding was that a small, but vocal, special interest group was upset for nominating their favorite programming language. The vast majority of angry people seemed unable to come up with a rational reason for saving the article. The vast majority of calm people seemed to agree with the deletions, and agreed with me for labeling the others as a small-but-vocal-minority. If you felt you were doing something right and no one who thought you were wrong had a convincing case (as convincing as "nazi dickwad deletionist we're gonna e-mail your professor" is), wouldn't you try to push through the intimidation? It wasn't until the wider reddit and HN communities caught on that I understood that it wasn't an annoyed minority, yet I would have caught on earlier if someone had actually tried to reason with me (and maybe brought up the citation argument).

I regret that I am unable to reply to each comment individually, HN's software stops me from making too many posts.

<comment><USER11> Your understanding is wrong. It is this attitude of yours, that of ascribing fictional motives to those who criticized you, and the failure to comprehend the impact of your actions, that had a role to play in precipitating the outrage in the first place. I am no fan or user of any of the language that you helped delete. But that does not mean I would be ok with those deletions. See my other comments for an elaboration. I know enough that important knowledge also exists as folklore and it is important to preserve them on Wikipedia, precisely because they are not represented adequately elsewhere.

You are clearly disingenuous. You complained about: if only people had told you that you were doing wrong. People did, and you came up with snarks and smileys and gratuitously appointed yourself the position of a judge that decides which citations had impact and which did not. And when it went out of hand, you played the victim and you changed your excuse to 'if only _more_ people did, more reasonably etc. etc'.

``I only recommended a deletion, did not delete it myself``, is another exhibition of dis ingenuousness and irresponsibility. Same for the shuttling between, "I am sorry" and, ``I was right in every case``. (Things between `` `` aren't actual quotes)

I believe you are an adult, everybody expects adults to possess some degree of understanding of what is being told to them and act and apply rules with ownership and responsibility. What is specifically galling is that when push came to a shove you took up the excuse that notably rules are broken. But, earlier, had no problems argumentatively enforcing them blindly. No one had a gun to your head to do whatever you went about doing, you went about doing it anyway and then hid behind a straw-man.

Nobody has the time an energy to, as you indicate, to reason with someone at length. Especially when the other person is being unreasonably pedantic and obnoxious. Most people have a real job and more important things to do.

Edit: @runjake your point well taken and upped.

<comment><USER12> A wise man once said "Do not feed the troll."

Edit: before down-arrowing me, you may want to examine the situation. It's pretty apparent this guy has an agenda.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The first public victory of inclusionism over deletionism. Perhaps it is not too late for Wikipedia. If only similar mobs could mete out rough internet justice to the top ten most notorious deletionists, casual contributors may once again walk the hallways of Wikipedia.

[only partially tongue-in-cheek here...]

<comment><USER14> Deletionism is the reason Wikipedia has only a moderate shortage of editors curating content, rather than an utterly insoluble maintenance nightmare. If this farce means the inclusionists are winning, it's the beginning of the end for Wikipedia. They will get what they seem to want—a mirror of the entire web hosted at wikipedia.org, with just as much outdated, useless, and actively misleading crap.

<comment><USER15> Deletionism is also one of the major reasons that I only contribute to the Hackety Hack and Shoes articles on Wikipedia, and nothing else. (oh, and I fear the day when I have to try to prove Hackety Hack 'notable.' I'm pretty sure that it isn't by the letter of the law.)

They'd have more help if they didn't go around deleting things.

<comment><USER16> With the current model there needs to be some line because editors are a finite resource and people do occasionally deface articles etc. I would suggest having Wikipedia's deleted articles end up on another website (using the same backend) which is then ignored by the editorial community to avoid annoying people.

PS: There are already plenty of other wiki's with different focus. There is little need for ex: naruto.wikia.com content on en.wikipedia.com.

<comment><USER15> The notability guidelines don't address this at all. If the article about AliceML got defaced, the people who obviously care about it would fix it.

And if nobody cares about the article, why does it matter if it's been defaced? And why not delete it once it's been defaced, rather than pre- emptively?

<comment><USER16> AliceML is an edge case where arguments can be made on both sides (I would have kept it). However the rule is more setup to avoid people adding their family tree and favorite recopies to Wikipedia etc resulting in 10 billion articles and no way to manage them. Overall I think it's a fairly loose standard ex:(Random article) gave me

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookpeople_(distributor)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Nash_(basketball)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Holme_Larsen

I can see keeping the first and possibly the second, but why not delete the third?

PS: A different option might be to build a custom AI to validate things, but for now balancing Notable around the size of the community seems reasonable.

<comment><USER15> I see this as a UI problem, not a 'real' problem.

<comment><USER16> Heh, I see it as more of an organizational issue, but I suggested a UI solution. Wikipedia is a moderated wiki that seems un-moderated to most users. The Notability rules bother people, but they are really part of a larger tradeoff and scrapping them is risky.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a fan and user(!) of Factor, I agree that it fails the notability test on Wikipedia. I can't find any mention of the language, beyond that by the author, which might convince a 3rd person that it is more notable than my own pet PL projects. But this might be true of many implementations of well- defined languages like Smalltalk, Scheme, or C. Take a look at the big list of Scheme implementations[1]. How many of them are "notable"? Is Ikarus or Chicken notable? Many PL papers describe some minor tweak in a homegrown toy language. Are all those languages notable?

I think Factor deserves to have a Wikipedia page (it still does), but I don't know by what general criteria I'm including it. It has a complete, robust implementation and is still actively developed, which is more than could be said of 90% of PLs out there. But how do we codify that into a notability test?

[1] [http://community.schemewiki.org/?scheme-faq- standards#implem...](http://community.schemewiki.org/?scheme-faq- standards#implementations)

</comment><comment><USER18> The damage is already done. _"I'm sorry (but I was still right!)"_ is the kind of apology I would expect to hear from a child. If you're sorry, then _make it right_ and undo the harm that you did. Otherwise, just shut-up, you're not sincere.

<comment><USER19> He didn't say he was sorry. He just said he will stop.

<comment><USER18> Exactly my point. He's sorry that he got called out, nothing more.

<comment><USER4> So? Isn't the most important thing that he's stopping?

<comment><USER20> The important thing would be restoring the articles. As far as I can see, that isn't happening (yet).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_(programming_language)> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemerle>

I might just be seeing a cached version, though.

edit: grr, I cannot reply to you, but yes, that was my point exactly: he could request a deletion review.

<comment><USER4> Chris is just another Wikipedian though. He has the same ability to undo the changes as you do.

<comment><USER21> He's not "just another Wikipedian", he's the _particular_ Wikipedian that made this mess. So he has a particular responsibility to clean it up.

<comment><USER4> Ahem... Let me rephrase my above comment. Anything Chris can do, you can do. Perhaps rather than complaining about who "should" clean it up, you can actually do it yourself?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Even after this "reversal", I'm not sure he understands why people were angry about his AfDs.

<comment> T-R Judging from his comments, I'd wager this wouldn't have blown up if it weren't for his attitude toward the whole situation. His use of smileys coupled with his tone leaves the impression of condescension, obliviousness, or apathy toward the people he'd upset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Right... notability guidelines are broken, but he doesn't mind following it to the letter.

</comment><comment><USER24> Notability is broken, since it is usually subjective and wielded mercilessly as an axe by the Wikipedia mafia to cull material which they deem as not notable. Inclusive? Haha, don't make me laugh.

<comment><USER25> There is, however, nothing stopping articles deemed as not notable by consensus at Wikipedia from being included in other references.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What I think is funny: this guy seems to point to a problem with the internet and Wikipedia. But the actual problem is that he is not a programmer (obviously) so he has a skewed view of what is notable when it comes to programming language. In other words, he has _no clue_ what he is talking about.

He then blames 'the internet' for calling him out. That is the problem with the internet: this newbie comes into the scene and has no idea why his actions are annoying and detrimental. He says he's looking for 'policies' but he's just a newbie.

Hopefully in 5-10 years these dramas will end when we all collectively grow up a bit and stop with the ignorant drama queen games.

Good to see that some aren't letting him rest until he acknowledges that he was deleting articles he had no business deleting. Ignorant editor is no excuse.

</comment><comment><USER27> Pruning knowledge is a dangerous process.

<comment><USER28> Regarding this as pruning knowledge is rather exaggerated. First wikipedia deletions are not deletions, they are just hidden from most users but can be viewed or restored. Second this is not primary knowledge it is a very short and incomplete summary of the primary sources.

<comment><USER23> I didn't realize that deletion is not permanent.

In what manner is the content hidden? Will it show up in search engine results? Will an anonymous user like myself see the content?

<comment><USER15> Check it out for yourself: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_programming_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_programming_language&action=edit&redlink=1)

> A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a > new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a > page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first > contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

<comment><AUTHOR> Minor correction here: the "Alice programming language" page was deleted, only to be moved to "Alice (programming language)". The one you want is here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_(programming...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_\(programming_language\))

<comment><USER15> Nice catch -- it still illustrates what a deleted page looks like though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> chris blanked his talk page on wikipedia. here's the content he removed: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Christop...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Christopher_Monsanto&action=historysubmit&diff=413834782&oldid=413833989)

</comment><comment><USER30> > _Since the internet seems to care more about keeping these articles than I > care about deleting them, I'll stop._

That's how these things work Chris.

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -John Gilmore 1993

</comment><comment><USER4> Has this page been changed since it was posted? Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see anything that indicates that he's giving up.

<comment><USER31> I couldn't see the change on the mobile edition of Wikipedia. It's there on the full version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> He very correctly points out that people should simply fix the Wikipedia rules then. In an open system, once you start ignoring the rules, everybody will want their exceptions and you end up in chaos. Anyone remember the Wikipedia from ten years ago? Today, it aims to have a good standard regarding its content, that is only possible with rules. So just update the rules and everything is fine. More importantly, it will still be fine ten years from now, when nobody remembers this incident anymore.

<comment><USER33> >He very correctly points out that people should simply fix the Wikipedia rules then.

Everyone is responsible for _their own action_. You should not follow rules that are bad, you should ignore them or try to change them yourself. "Just doing my job" is not a legitimate excuse and if I had the power I would punish that defense more severely than any other because it's the most dangerous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Stack Exchange process for deleting content > Wikipedia process for deleting content.

Having nominations be anonymous until a consensus is reached stops this kind of issue arising. Sometimes complete transparency isn't the best policy.

</comment><comment><USER35> Not unexpected, but whenever something like this happens, to me the real tragedy is the level of animosity and vitriol shown by the "victims".

<comment><USER36> Power imbalances tend to produce that emotional response. Popular revolt follows, especial when food prices go up. Wait, scratch that last bit.

<comment><USER37> In this case I think it's more down to the fact that a "fan community" exists. The _exact_ same response happens when a band gets proposed for deletion and someone posts about it on the band's mailing list. You get 100 posts about how this is in fact The Most Important Band In Genre In The Past Ten Years and Wikipedia's administrators must be knuckle-dragging cultureless slobs if they don't recognize that. Then semi-organized mobs try to find who proposed the article for deletion and harass him, etc.

When I saw a bunch of these posts at the top of HN, I was actually expecting a better discussion, but it seems PLs fans are pretty similar to music fans when it comes to someone touching the stuff they like!

And in the other direction, you get much better discussions when there isn't a fandom involved. Most deletion debates of science and math articles end up pretty civil, with a reasonable debate about whether to merge the information somewhere, whether better sources can be found to improve the article instead of deleting it, etc. At worst, you get the one guy who wrote a vanity article about his research lab posting under multiple accounts to try to save it, but usually no mobs.

<comment><USER38> If there is a band out there with an active online community numbering in the hundreds (which means their offline following is a few orders of magnitude greater), I don't see why they shouldn't have a wikipedia page.

<comment><USER37> If there are good sources to write an article from, sure. But if there aren't any sources besides the band's website, their MySpace, and a few fans' blog posts, what goes in the article? The usual result is that fans just write a bunch of stuff about the band they like, which doesn't make for the best article. I don't personally care that much, but I don't think the world is greatly harmed by not having those articles, either; for that kind of stuff, there are always fansites and fan wikis, so they don't _have_ to go on Wikipedia.

<comment><USER39> Just basic information, which is better than nothing.

If you enquire about the bank in wikipedia you'll get something like

"Awesome Band is a neo-dark-fusion-hip-hop jazz Slovenian band formed in 2002. They have produced one album called and are currently active."

Answers the question "what is Awesome Band?" which is the role of wikipedia, isn't it?

<comment><USER25> >Answers the question "what is Awesome Band?" which is the role of wikipedia, isn't it?

No, it's not. Wikipedia is a knowledge repository not _the_ knowledge repository. It's not there to hold every little bit of trivia, if you want to find "what is Awesome Band" then use a search engine. Wikipedia is there to house notable instances and information that has wider application than mere trivia.

Unless Awesome Band started a new genre, influenced well known bands, is a well known band (eg number 1 tracks, headlining particularly large events, etc.) or is known for something else then it's probably enough to mention them as a footnote as a band that played at Event X or possibly as a notable example of a genre or whatever.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_conte...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria)

<comment><USER6> You have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of what wikipedia is then.

 _Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing._ \- Jimmy Wales

[http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/07/28/1351230/Wikipe...](http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/07/28/1351230/Wikipedia- Founder-Jimmy-Wales-Responds)

<comment><USER25> That's clearly not what is being done if you either assess the linked content guidelines or look at Wikipedia itself.

One can either contest that this is simply a soundbite for the press or look at the definition of "knowledge" being used if one cares to square the apparent contradictions.

Why would Wikipedia even attempt to record all information about everything, who wants to know what I had for breakfast or what image is on my son's pyjamas; I contend that everyone that really needs that information already has it.

<comment><USER6> _Why would Wikipedia even attempt to record all information about everything, who wants to know what I had for breakfast or what image is on my son's pyjamas; I contend that everyone that really needs that information already has it._

Who knows? I _needed_ information on Alice ML today, but alas that was not to be. You are not the personal arbitrator of what I need to know any more than Chris Monsanto is of what languages are notable!

For at least the first half of it's life, wikipedia grew at an astonishing rate precisely because it wasn't being moderated by pedantic self-appointed editors. The rise of the editor class in wikipedia may have irreperably broken it as a compendium of knowledge. Imagine, people who know nothing about a subject telling you weather that subject is important to you!

Ridiculous? That's the current state of affairs. One could argue there is even a growing movement of people, like minded with yourself, that it should simply be reduced until it contains no more information than any other run-of-the- mill encyclopedia.

I have news for you, we have plenty of free, scope-limited, hand curated encyclopedias.

Here's what I came up with in 30 seconds. Go entertain yourself with these if you think having articles on obscure, but important topics is simply too much for you to handle.

<http://www.encyclopedia.com/> <http://www.britannica.com/> <http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/> <http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page>

The point of Wikipedia is to go far beyond these approaches by crowdsourcing the content. So that people can add what they personally know about obscure subjects. If I happen to be an expert in Korean clam harvesting operations, should I be able to write an article on that? Who the hell cares if you don't personally take an interest in it.

You're right if your response is "well we don't want to just copy what's on the web!" An encyclopedia is supposed to provided a summary of a subject, a launching off point, a confirmation of a subject's existence. It should provide exhaustive breadth. In wikipedia's case, it was even able to provide a bit of depth through external citations, and through hyperlinking to other parts of itself. But the number of subjects should be virtually unlimited. Wikipedia _should_ provide the long-tail. As a pedagogic device, limiting what I'm allowed to look up limits what I can learn about.

To your example, it might be of fantastic importance to me to know what are popular breakfast foods in your country or what kinds of logos kids are wearing these days. A page about Breakfast practices or marketing to children then would be fantastically important to _me_ , but maybe not to you.

<comment><USER25> > _Who knows? I needed information on Alice ML today, but alas that was not to > be._

Are you seriously telling me you sat down with an internet browser and couldn't find any information about that specific programming language? It's far less notable than I assumed in which case (it took <30s to find <http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2007/1262/> which suggests to me you're lying).

> _Imagine, people who know nothing about a subject telling you weather that > subject is important to you!_

That's not what is happening - Wikipedia uses a democratic process to determine if something is considered notable by the community. We/They say nothing about whether something is important to you. If something is considered not to be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia that doesn't mean you can't write about it, blog about it, even create your own wiki about it.

> _If I happen to be an expert in Korean clam harvesting operations, should I > be able to write an article on that? Who the hell cares if you don't > personally take an interest in it._

Of course, I'd be interested in that, I'm also interested in obscure programming languages too.

However, if Korean clam harvesting is no different to Japanese clam harvesting, which is more-or-less the same as Chinese clam harvesting, then they should be noted on a general article about clam harvesting you don't need a separate article for each country (given the imaginary constraints I've set) nor do you need a different article on each company that does clam harvesting, each location, each person working in each location, ...

> _To your example, it might be of fantastic importance to me to know what are > popular breakfast foods in your country or what kinds of logos kids are > wearing these days. A page about Breakfast practices or marketing to > children then would be fantastically important to me, but maybe not to you._

And there you have it, AFAICT you just argued for my point-of-view.

The point is that it is largely irrelevant what _I_ had for breakfast, what the design on _my son's_ pyjamas are but a general page about breakfast is apposite, a general page about use of cartoons in merchandising is apposite.

Similarly it's not important to list every programming language and variant ever. If it's important to you then you'll find the information in a relevant place that gives fine esoteric information about this specific field.

<comment><USER6> _Are you seriously telling me you sat down with an internet browser and couldn't find any information about that specific programming language? It's far less notable than I assumed in which case (it took <30s to find <http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2007/1262/> which suggests to me you're lying)._

good, then let's just get rid of Wikipedia altogether. Since I _can_ just get whatever information I need by googling there's really not a point to the site anyways. Is that your argument? At this point I'm 50% thinking that you're just trolling.

 _That's not what is happening - Wikipedia uses a democratic process to determine if something is considered notable by the community. We/They say nothing about whether something is important to you. If something is considered not to be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia that doesn't mean you can't write about it, blog about it, even create your own wiki about it._

That is _exactly_ what happened in this case. One person flagged, one person deleted. The community voted consistently against the deletion. Check the AfD discussions yourself if you don't believe me. There was not a single vote agreeing the the AfD flag. You can carry on all you want about how WP has various procedures and policies and what not, but that is not what happens _de facto_ with shocking regularity.

 _However, if Korean clam harvesting is no different to Japanese clam harvesting, which is more-or-less the same as Chinese clam harvesting, then they should be noted on a general article about clam harvesting you don't need a separate article for each country (given the imaginary constraints I've set) nor do you need a different article on each company that does clam harvesting, each location, each person working in each location, ..._

But I should be able to create a page if any of those things are interesting or notable enough, if there's enough information on it. Korean clam harvesting may be special and unique in the world. It may have hundreds of thousands of adherents, it may have it's own culture, equipment, techniques etc. It may appear prominently in Korean culture, movies, newspapers or other media. In fact, there could be an entire musical genre of clam harvester music.

But you think "woah, wait a minute, I can't handle all this information" and so it gets shoved into a sidenote on a two page summary of "clam digging", and none of that information ends up compiled and summarized in an article like it deserves to be because some overzealous ignoramus decided to flag it as an AfD and the community who could discuss its importance generally doesn't speak English and even if they did and could vote to keep the article, would probably just get ignored by the editors anyways -- just like in this case.

 _Similarly it's not important to list every programming language and variant ever. If it's important to you then you'll find the information in a relevant place that gives fine esoteric information about this specific field._

I personally think that listing top-40 pop stars is esoteric information about a specific field I could care less about. But since lots of people seem to like it, we end up with countless pages to that dreck. These languages actually _are_ important to computer science in the same way Fra Angelico is important to Renaissance art. Is Fra Angelico considered a notable master of painting in the same way well known artists are. No. But it's important to have his information summarized and presented, with notes regarding his influence and hist works.

Similarly, Alice ML is the Fra Angelico of the functional programming world. To remove a page about Alice ML is exactly the same as marking Fra Angelico's page AfD because you don't personally know about his notability and then a similarly ignorant editor agrees and BAM! it's gone for all time.

<comment><USER25> >Since I can just get whatever information I need by googling there's really not a point to the site anyways. Is that your argument?

Absolutely not, and you clearly know it. That's like me saying your argument is that we should get rid of the rest of the internet because one can post lolcats to Wikipedia as notable examples of, er, lolcats.

>But you think "woah, wait a minute, I can't handle all this information" and so it gets shoved into a sidenote on a two page summary of "clam digging"

No I don't. But you're getting sidetracked by the fabricated analogy and forgetting that the removed articles don't have the [fictional] notability of the subject of your story and would have been very unlikely to have been removed if they had and would have certainly been reinstated.

>To remove a page about Alice ML is exactly the same as marking Fra Angelico's page AfD because you don't personally know about his notability

Let's try this as a first approximation on notability. The internet is probably the main repository of CS info - 120 Google Scholar articles mention "'Alice ML'" (appear to be some false positives). Arguably art history is better represented in works that are yet to be fully integrated online - <USER2> Google Scholar articles mention "Fra Angelico".

How about books as a further approximation. 33 book results for "'Alice ML' programming" (18 are obvious false positives too). "'fra angelico' ~painting" (I don't think it's ambiguous without the addition of "~painting" but for equivalence ...) gives 133000 book results.

Popularity and plurality don't dictate notability of course. Notability in this case is a function of the appearance of notability to the authors and editors too, hence pop-stars, etc..

-

On the subject of the AfD (articles for deletion). I've looked now at the one for Alice ML, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alice_%28programming_language%29)

The oppositions are clearly poor. Most of them are based on the false assumption that Alice (software) is what is at question. A couple mention notability based on being in a book and the proposer convincingly counters these IMO. Vorov2 is the only dissenting voice that appears to know what they are talking about and gives a reasonable argument. Again, it seems clear that the proposer was most knowledgable about the subject, knew the relevant reference works (so had researched) and knew the WP policy well. SarekOfVulcan makes the deletion.

So in summary, one flagged, another gave good opposition, yet another deleted.

In many ways the fact that there was no other decent opposition to this deletion leads me to believe that it was the correct course of action. Note that Alice ML is still present in Wikipedia in _a priori_ relevant places ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksH...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Alice_%28programming_language%29&limit=999)).

<comment><USER6> I'm now 100% convinced that you are just trolling. No reasonable person could come to the conclusion that you just came to without ignoring nearly all of the evidence because it doesn't fit some arbitrary criteria that you've decided to use to make sure your contrarian view is right -- in precisely the way Monsanto did in ignoring the evidence thrown up in opposition to him.

The opposition is strong, they cite references to the language (a few cite references to the software, true), but all are summarily ignored because, just like you, Monsanto decided they don't fit into whatever arbitrary set of requirements you woke up and decided to use today.

And, as of today, it turns out you were wrong anyways since the page has been reinstated.

<comment><USER25> >And, as of today, it turns out you were wrong anyways since the page has been reinstated.

If you read what I wrote you'll note that I argued that if a sufficient argument for notability was pressed that this would be a reason for inclusion.

So, by your account that I am wrong I'd have to assume that the article was reinstated without presentation of evidence of notability or logical argument for such?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I wonder how many people got up in arms when they saw the "Monsanto" and thought a patent-hoarding Satan was running around Wikipedia erasing programming language articles.

This wasn't really a valuable comment, but I couldn't help it.

</comment><comment><USER41> The permalink for this is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Christopher_M...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Christopher_Monsanto&oldid=413834663)

</comment><comment><USER42> that is the outermost danger of tomorrow - the youngs today are made believe in the rule of rule. They will be cutting each other's fingers (of course after due process presided over by the millenium judge) for pressing a button on their own hardware they aren't licensed to press by the EULA or for not using real name on Facebook/Quora.

</comment><comment><USER43> Thank you, Chris. You did the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER44> This problem is hardy unique to this instance alone, or even to wikipedia alone. This is a question faced by All publications, that of target audience and market. Obviously on a tech forum like HN we're more likely to be interested in langs like factor. But imagine a journalist looking through langs to report on computer sci or a teenager looking for something new to study... It would be a waste of time.

Problem with wikipedia is that it does not have a target audience defined clearly enough to answer these questions easily. And as with many sites, except for the specific use case it was designrped for, it's not useful. For eacmple could a student learn any calculus from the calculus page?

We should stop trying force wikipedia to be the ideal resource for everything, as it's clearly impossible. There are better mediums for that.</comment>


Show HN: Txt-todo – Super SIMPLE text file todo - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/KNNCreative/txt-todo <comment><USER2> Related is the todo.txt format: [http://todotxt.com/](http://todotxt.com/)</comment>


The Death of Couchsurfing? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jameshopest/the-death-of-couchsurfing-a87d9537edf2 <comment><USER2> So I imagine there's a lot of people here that don't know Couchsurfing or what the big deal is. Couchsurfing has been one of the most important things in my life, so I'll do my best to explain why it's so special.

The basic idea is you stay at a stranger's place, or you host a stranger at yours - completely for free, no money involved. Everyone does it differently. Some people plan their trip meticulously months in advance and give arrival times to the minute, while others send a message at 9pm the same night asking if you're free. Some people ask to stay one night, some three, some far more; some bring bags of delicious food and artwork of their culture and some bring nothing.

I mostly host, and I've had all of the above - and then some. You have an incredibly diverse group of people. I've met artists, musicians, dancers - everyone from a Syrian man who lived under ISIS for years to an evangelical Christian woman who wanted to try shrooms.

The beautiful thing is that it's anything you want it to be. People have profiles that are often filled out with a good amount of detail (I usually skip the skimpy profiles) so you can pick out whoever or whatever you want. You want a pastry chef? You want a violinist? You want an architect? You want someone tidy and on-time or a hitchhiking hippie? Simply search for one to host or stay with.

The friendships and relationships I've made through Couchsurfing have been some of the best and most interesting I could have asked for. And the best part - you can do it all from home, traveling the world from the comfort of your couch.

Anyway, that's the beauty of it. I really hope that the network of people can be saved. Long term, I think it can, with something like BeWelcome, but of course it's a network effect problem - no hosts=no guests.

If anyone is curious about Couchsurfing (or wants to couchsurf my boat in the Netherlands - seriously, anyone is welcome, please come!) then feel free to send me an email (it's in my profile.)

<comment><USER3> Every woman I've met on couch surfing has been a victim of some kind of sexual harassment or violence due to someone they meet on couchsurfing. Basically they stay with a guy and he has expectations and is vocal if not forceful about it. Women would be surprised that I had a bed just for them, didn't expect them to sleep with me, didn't ask them for sex, etc. I hosted for two years living in Berlin.

That being said I also had some amazing experiences through couchsurfing.

<comment><USER2> Wow! I've hosted a good bit and that's completely different from my experience.

> Women would be surprised that I had a bed just for them

It sounds like you were taking a lot of the desperate people on the site that aren't mostly in it for the cultural exchange but to save $5. Because here's the thing - everyone's profile has a section detailing what kind of room/bed the Couchsurfer will get. A "shared bed" is a red flag the size of Russia.

That's the other thing: I like to read the CS profiles of the guys accused of being creepy. 95% of the time, it's VERY obvious who they are. Guys will have "sex" in their interests, only have a shared tiny bed, or pictures of them shirtless, or 100% references from young women, etc., etc. That's the beauty of Couchsurfing - if you see a profile that you're not 100% confident in, then just move on; there are fifteen million people.

The real problem on Couchsurfing stems from people not reading each others' profiles. People get greedy, see a way to save on hotels, then send out copy- paste message spam that's not unique to your profile. I only host people who send me a message personalized to my profile, and even then that's after a lot of reading their profile, references, etc. I simply ignore the copy-pasted messages - if you don't care who you end up with, then you're not Couchsurfing for the interesting experience, you're doing it to save a few bucks.

If you don't read profiles and carefully select, then you're basically rolling the dice. This is the #1 cause of bad Couchsurfing experiences.

TL;DR: if you choose a host without reading, Couchsurfing just becomes Omegle IRL.

(If you're a woman reading this and want to Couchsurf 100% safely, you can do things like only surf families, other women, places where you'll get your own room, etc etc.)

<comment><USER4> Couchsurfing was founded after Casey Fenton had a plane ticket to Iceland but no money for a hotel. So, he spammed the University of Reykjavik's e-mail directory asking to stay on someone's couch. Aiming to save money on accommodation has ALWAYS been a thing on CS. Yes, it is great when cultural exchange and friendship arise on top of the exchange of free accommodation, but it doesn't happen with every guest or with every host.

Also, as a 2005 signup, I can attest that copy/paste requests have always been a thing. In fact, initially they were the norm. Back when travelers used internet cafes and were paying for every minute, it was understandable that they needed to send out a wave of requests quickly without being able to personalize them. Even now, I prefer copy/paste as a host because I can sympathize with travelers and don't want them to jump through silly hoops.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I know how the site started :) But Couchsurfing is a lot different from the CS of nearly two decades ago. It's several orders of magnitude bigger, and it's got many, many travelers who never host, only surf, with an ungrateful attitude who see you as a free hotel. I saw downthread you said you switched to other platforms (which is great, they need to grow!) but they are a lot different from 2020 Couchsurfing, where I get a constant flood of messages and regularly get messages from people essentially demanding a free hotel and food, occasionally for the most ridiculous of reasons (like that they're here for a conference and want to pocket the reimbursement.)

And I have no problem with people that want to save money, but if that's the - only - thing they're using CS for, with no interest in ever talking to me, then I'm just not going to host them.

It's admirable to take in anyone, but it's pretty rare. The vast majority of hosts I know (and have surfed) will only take people in who have read their profiles.

Like I mentioned, there's a safety component to this (for men as well!) but also a practical side - many people live a good bit outside the city they're listed in, some people go to bed early or late, some people play music all night, some people are nudists, some people have a shorter sleeping spot (couch/bed/etc)... If you don't read profiles you're just rolling the dice - even if you just want a free bed!

By the way, I think I'll try to be more active on BW/Trustroots (hosting mostly.) Any advice for how to get my profile seen? On CS I get absolutely flooded with messages (and often get great, well written messages) - on BW and Trustroots I've gotten nothing.

<comment><USER4> Again, as a member for many years, I constantly heard year after year "CS is different than it used to be. There are so many freeloaders now!" But when I signed up in 2005, two of the demographics sending me requests were academics coming to town for a conference, or e.g. guys whose girlfriend kicked them out and they needed a place to crash. I didn't see this change significantly in the years before I bailed in 2016, and I always found it easy to ignore them and host backpackers.

Really, for me the negative change in CS over the years was the explosion in hosts who were sedentary. If you don't do shoestring travel as a lifestyle yourself, you won't be able to sympathize with your potential guest's needs. For a site that, in Europe, spread initially through the hitchhiking community, I was appalled to see so many CS hosts by 2008 who looked down on free travel, and threw around words like "freeloader".

I also can't agree with people complaining about guests who need their hosts to feed them. If they are ordinary backpackers who just budgeted poorly, that is one thing, but if they are intentionally trying to live on no money, that is another thing entirely. Among the freespirited alternative traveler community who founded CS, there have always been people traveling by providence, and they have been among my best and most memorable guests. Their stories and positive attitudes far outpaid the pasta and salad I made for them.

Finally, you can't assume that guests who write a non-copy/paste request actually read your profile. Sure, they may have quickly scanned your profile for things they can mention in a request, but that doesn't mean they care about the details. For years I could only offer a mattress on the floor and clearly said so in my profile, and yet so many of the guests who wrote ostensibly personalized requests either didn't catch that, or when they accepted my invitation and arrived at my home they complained about it. Again, writers of copy/paste are just as likely to be appreciative or not.

As for getting requests on BW or Trustroots, either live in a place where many travelers want to go to, or become a superhost whose house is open to all travelers and word of the good vibe there attracts people to your region even if initially they don't know what to do there. Those are your only options, really. However, this looks to be the biggest wave of CS refugees ever, so you may start getting more requests regardless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >If community powered websites like Reddit can survive

Reddit is backed by venture capital and shifted heavily to be more advertiser friendly.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know how Hacker News manages to stay so pure, given that it's run by venture capitalists, yet still remains free of ads and open to newcomers. Monetising CS is like demanding a signup fee to join HN: it will drastically change the community.

<comment><USER5> Hacker News is smaller than most major subreddits in terms of usage. 400 upvotes is considered a lot here. The site is extremely simple and something that could be replicated in a couple of days at most by most engineers. It doesn't process money or really require a lot of content moderation either.

<comment><USER6> That is all true but the real answer is that it is run as a charity project by billionaires. So it doesn't need to be monetized.

<comment><USER7> Ehh there's a really pro ycombinator slant and ever notice how any yc announcement, hiring notice, or article quickly hits the top? They're getting a lot of value out of that stuff that helps with the VC side of things.

<comment><USER5> Who would hate on YCombinator?

<comment><USER8> There are some legitimate arguments about how VC backed startups have behaved as of late, and YC is part of that overall system.

I'm not sure where I personally sit, but I think it's a bit silly to pretend that YC is universally beloved or beyond reproach.

<comment><USER9> Sure, but the criticisms mostly don't apply to companies in the seed stage. YC is somewhat removed from the mainstream critiques of startups mostly by sitting at the part of the process where startups are most startup-like, ironically enough.

<comment><USER8> You're not wrong, but we're talking about different things. _Culturally_ YC is more associated with startup culture, even if their direct involvement ends after the seed stage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Couchsurfing, I love you, but y'all have a horrible business model.

Between 2017 & 2019, I hosted about Couchsurfers. I initially paid to verify my identity, and I paid a few dollars per quarter (I forget how much) to maintain my membership. Then I needed to change my credit card. There was literally no option to change my credit card. In order to change my credit card, I had to let me credit card expire. Wat.

In there recent email about running out of money, they were looking for people to spend $2.49 USD/month or $14.99 USD/year. I was like "hey, I can finally support them!" So I clicked on the link, and because I already have a verified membership, there was still no option to pay. I contacted support asking how I could pay, and instead of giving me a way to send them cash, they gave me ANOTHER FREE YEAR of verified membership. Wat.

Maybe start a Patreon? It'd be hard to screw that one up.

<comment><USER10> Was supposed to say "hosted about 50 couch surfers".

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Couchsurfing was fantastic in its early days, then came the era of using websites for just-a-little-bit-too-much-dating, then they went .com and tried to be "cool" with redesigns, eventually drowning the simplicity of their concept a little bit too much. That $25 yearly fee slapped onto everything, with no chance to even connect with previous contacts, is disappointing to say the least. No doubt that the meaning of "couchsurfing" will far outlast the website, especially now.

<comment><USER12> There are creepy amounts of guys who only host young, attractive women. It used to be more like hosting anyone - young, old, any gender, and sharing travel tales.

<comment><USER13> This has been my vicarious experience. The friends of mine who were young, attractive women who tried Couchsurfing all ended up with creepy stories along the lines of "Oh yeah I stayed with this guy, and then — funny story — it turns out he only has one bed! Ho ho ho…"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> CS generated billions in social capital but that can be hard to monetize. I wish they had solicited donations sooner and not raised that 10M round.

They could have started a Patreon or buy me coffee-esque donation model several years ago and people would have been down to help sustain them.

It seems that mid 2000s internet knew how to use CS without being creepy but more and more of the 2010s internet just didn't. There were so many allegations of harassment and women not feeling comfortable. One woman traveler I met said if she even logged in in India, she would get 6-7 invites from men to stay with her. Seems like this 'travelers near you' feature maybe had some downsides.

It's also just hard to stay relevant with the rise of facebook, airbnb, and reddit. It's a bummer they didn't stay more focused. Gosh, I would have loved to work for them back when I lived near the mission, but it sounds like it would have been incredibly frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER15> This really reminds me of how podcasts have gone. It used to be that nine out of ten podcasts I listened to had no ads - they were about spreading a message or having fun, or getting some personal recognition. They didn't have major overhead because it's cheap to come on once every week or two and chat with your buddies. Now, not only are there many high-quality professional podcasts, but the old fashioned ones I enjoy have all one by one gotten in on the game. Eventually podcasting became something you either made money at or you were doing it wrong (see also: blogs). When even BackStory and The Skeptics Guide to the Universe are shilling for Blue Apron that transition is complete.

<comment><USER16> If you're looking for people who are still having silly fun, have a look at Twitch and the folks over at 'just chatting' or I think there's a section specifically for programming? Those channels very much have that informal vibe.

Regarding making money or doing it wrong - says who? The barrier to entry for podcasting has never been lower. It's all in people's heads :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Couchsurfing was the website that allowed dozens of young people from developing countries to do world trips. Imagine being in your early twenties surrounded by limitations; no money, no job but a bright & open mind who wants to see the world, despite all the travel restrictions. Couchsurfing was the magic of internet that helped young & bright but not rich young people. Some investors bought it and killed it.

</comment><comment><USER18> In related news, [https://www.warmshowers.org/](https://www.warmshowers.org/) (a couchsurfing, but only for cyclists) also changed "business model" this month. However, they will not charge existing active users and only ask new sign-ups for 30 USD once for lifetime access.

[https://www.warmshowers.org/sites/default/files/files/inline...](https://www.warmshowers.org/sites/default/files/files/inline/Announcement_English.pdf)

<comment><USER19> Did they do a "host only" free signup?

I left couchsurfing (which i used mostly for hosting) to warmshowers where I've hosted a dozen or two guests over the last few years. I've never traveled on a bike and don't have any plans to. The guests are great, since bike touring is a filter for a certain kind of person.

I don't know I would have signed up if it were $30 (though it has obviously been worth it).

One of my "things to do when im rich" daydreams was to visit my favorite guests/host from CS in a world tour. Most I didn't exchange numbers or emails with, but having their good reviews on my profile was a monument of what the kind of person I wanted to be. If it's true I can't message them now, I should've got rich sooner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There seems to be a lot of anger in my local community. Probably 10:1 angry vs. supportive. It's sad because this is the end of the sharing economy that got overrun by the gig economy. I'm not sure the network will move to another site, and there's a lot of friction to redraw all the lines of connection and reviews.

</comment><comment><USER21> Couchsurfing is like a master class in how to destroy community engagement in your business/project.

So, back before the ubiquity of 2 or 3 social media sites, CouchSurfing was a quirky place to meet travelers and let them crash on your couch. One of the things that made it work was profile reviews and couch requests. The second thing was the community forums.

The profile reviews and couch requests acted as a quality filter. Bad reviews lead to much lower community engagement. An interesting profile and good reviews, combined with community instruction on how to compose a good request, leads to acceptance of couch requests. The system works as long as the community polices itself, teaches its values to new members, and encourages good behavior.

The community forums were a huge part of facilitating all that. Profiles would often include instructions on how to behave, but the forums filled the gaps by adding social pressure to enforce standard conventions. They also ensured there was constant user engagement and content, which we know from modern social media sites is imperative for a vibrant community.

All of that got flushed down the drain when Couchsurfing reorganized and annihilated their old site. All the community engagement fled to private Facebook groups. That caused profile quality to crash, and the result is anti- community behavior, like how the majority of single men on the platform now host only single women, which besides being sketch as hell, just makes it harder to find a reliable host.

After I literally flew across the country just to have lunch with the Couchsurfing team and discuss the community problems I'd collected, I got the impression that they were not going to change. My concerns were mostly considered bug reports, and the problems that drove the community away were never addressed. Years later, it looks like no work has been done at all.

I was grandfathered in as an older user so I never even realized they started charged you to send more than a certain number of couch requests. But why would any new user seriously commit to a community _now_? It can probably still be a place to meet amazing people, but you can also just meet amazing people anywhere you go in the world, without Couchsurfing.

The saddest part of all of this is that now there won't be an amazing platform to show people how insanely generous humans are all over the world. Hopefully BeWelcome or another site can pick up the mantle and restore the old ways, so we can go back to showing more people the inherent goodness of strangers - when those strangers are tied together via community and purpose.

</comment><comment><USER22> Couch surfing is not dead. In the adventure motorcycling community, there are this concept "tent spaces". It is like crowd surfing but instead of a couch, you get access to a toilet and space to pitch a tent.

[https://advrider.com/f/threads/tent-space- map-v2.1215147/](https://advrider.com/f/threads/tent-space-map-v2.1215147/)

<comment><USER23> Warm Showers is also pretty good. It's mostly Europe focused cycling community, where you meet amazing cyclists with a decent garage and a night full of stories.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> More reason to move towards a free and open source decentralized web. Otherwise a beautiful community over a decade in the making can be obliterated by the flick of a switch of a couple money-hungry idiots wearing suits.

<comment><USER25> I feel like the biggest money drain for any community website is not server or development fees, its moderation and community management. You cant just stick up a php app on a vps and let it run forever for $3/month. You have to hire people to remove spam and to read user reports to remove rapists and creeps from the platform.

<comment> blaser-waffle Hell just plain ole support. I got locked out of my Couchsurfing account twice and getting in was a pain.

I also dispute the "get a VPS and ship it" for 3/month -- there are a lot of images on Couchsurfing, and a userbase that's non-trivial in terms of size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> So sad to see this aggressive shift. I have made many good friends from Couchsurfing, and I was paying the annually fee both to support the site and to be "Verified by CouchSurfing". Even though on March they received my annually payment, today after reading this article I tried to login to CS after some months, only to find out I had to pay _again_ to even access my profile. I could not see my photos, references, messages, nothing.

I'm really disappointed and sad, and I guess I'm also switching to BeWelcome.

<comment><USER27> Have a look at Trustroots, the management of the project is quite different and doesn't put the same emphasis on formal democratic processes as BeWelcome does, but it makes for a community that's closer to what seems to me the authentic couchsurfing spirit. All of these hospex networks brought me a lot anyway.

<comment><USER28> I'm one of the Trustroots contributors, you're right about the governance topic, we have a do-ocracy approach right now (described a bit at the bottom of [https://www.trustroots.org/faq/foundation](https://www.trustroots.org/faq/foundation)). I'm actually keen to evolve this, with a more specific approach to community- governance, but this thinking and these talks take time.

<comment><USER27> I'm perfectly happy with the current style of governance. It seems like it works, while BeWelcome is still struggling with endless babbling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've had nothing but amazing experiences with CouchSurfing.

New Years Party in Budapest;

A haunted house trip in Philadelphia turned into being a pretend boyfriend for a girl in Ürümqi and a week later flying to Maldives with her best friend;

Playing ice hockey with the President of Finland;

Having a fling with a famous Japanese MMA Fighter;

I even started my website www.uncivil.engineer because of it; sad to see.

</comment><comment><USER30> Why does couchsurfing.com need to be a $22.5m venture backed business?

Not everything needs to be the next WeWork.

</comment><comment><USER31> An alternative will rise eventually. Couch surfing is all about experiences, friendships, and not thinking about money. Any person creating the alternative will have to understand and accept that.

<comment><AUTHOR> BeWelcome is open-source, has been around for a decade already, and has excellent financial transparency. Their fundraising target for this year is 1300€.

I've already contacted their developer to ask if I can help create a data import tool so people can easily transfer their C$ profiles.

It's heartbreaking to see such a wonderful community be divided like this. There are no "rich" and "poor" countries, only ones with more inequality. Ideally I wish that the HQ would change their mind, but my support is now behind BeWelcome as the alternative.

We must work together and stay united as a community. Travel will continue, despite government lockdowns. Contact tracing is much easier with hospex sites like BeWelcome than with 11 strangers in a hostel room. Economic troubles will lead people to cheaper alternatives. Even if C$ has been ruined by venture capitalists, giving freely and paying it forward will live on elsewhere.

In case this message reaches the C$ investors in Silicon Valley, I don't hate you personally, and I wish that internal reform is possible so that we don't all have to flee to a new platform. But the new change, brought without consultation, is contrary to the principles that CS was founded on. CS is not Airbnb, nor is it a dating site, nor is it exclusive. Selling personal data and private messages didn't bother me too much - Facebook does the same. But trying to charge a monthly subscription from people who don't even have stable countries, never mind bank accounts, is totally ignorant. Change your mind, quickly, because the community is already one foot out of the door.

<comment><USER32> I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I think CS was forced into a 'for- profit' designation for practical reasons:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9633122](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9633122)

... and it doesn't really represent the operation. At the end of the day, moderation and support for membership is needed, particularly for keeping predators out of the system, mechanisms for people who might have fallen prey to them. It is something that requires time and effort. Such operations need guaranteed vigilance on these issues, and aren't easily sustained by the whims of volunteer involvement.

It might be that many established members are okay with taking risks. I remember one host I stayed with that talked about hitch-hiking on trucks around Europe to save money, but also how she got drugged once and her money stolen and dumped in the middle of an autobahn, and then another time how she 'talked herself out of' being raped. This sort of risk might be okay for the seasoned couchsurfer, but this might not sit well for newcomers who don't know who they are staying with.

Not sure if the situation has changed with CS, and they've become profit- oriented, but it does take some money, from somewhere, to keep things to modern standards. Personally, I would prefer that CS was sustained by those who can afford to by donations, rather than subscription. And I may actually look to bewelcome, or hospitality club if that's still around. (I also used another called 'Trustroots', not sure if that still has a community.)

Edit: To that individual with the privilege to down-vote, could you please correct me where I'm wrong with an actual comment?

<comment><AUTHOR> Trustroots is being discussed as an alternative, but it doesn't have a reference system. I trust the reference system to keep the platform clear from the safety issues you describe. That's why I think BeWelcome is the best alternative to recommend right now.

Servers cost money, and BeWelcome are transparent about that. Having developers to code the site and moderate the forum would be expensive if paid by the hour, but there are willing volunteers. Asking for donations is acceptable, a paywall demanding a subscription is not.

Please come over to the BeWelcome forums; I'd like to discuss the possibilities of starting new meetups, and selling merch (t-shirts, hoodies, stickers) to improve the BeWelcome brand so it can bring together the community, lest we scatter. Any financial donation like that should be discussed democratically though, so that's why your input is needed.

(I didn't downvote, I think your comment is fair)

<comment><USER32> > Trustroots is being discussed as an alternative, but it doesn't have a > reference system

I logged in just earlier to have a look, and I see that people do have feedback. I'm not sure if there's anything like 'vouching' that CS used to have.

> Having developers to code the site and moderate the forum would be expensive > if paid by the hour, but there are willing volunteers.

I have been to a festival in Australia (the predecessor to burning man) that is completely volunteer run. It's interesting to be a part of operations and see it work, and fail to some extent, and in meat-space the 'look after each other philosophy' can work when everybody is can watch each other.

I'm not sure how that could translate to a platform that has private messaging. I believe CS had a mechanism where communications could be inspected if a complaint was raised.

> Asking for donations is acceptable, a paywall demanding a subscription is > not.

I think you're right about this. The people who I enjoyed the most with CS would probably find this offensive, so I'd be more likely to participate in a platform that was donation-based.

My only hesitation is that I lose all my references.

> so that's why your input is needed.

I'll make an effort.

<comment><USER33> > I have been to a festival in Australia (the predecessor to burning man) that > is completely volunteer run. It's interesting to be a part of operations and > see it work, and fail to some extent, and in meat-space the 'look after each > other philosophy' can work when everybody is can watch each other.

I'm curious about that (being an Australian and a Burner).

Which festival? (if you're OK sharing. My email in my profile works if you're OK sharing but not as widely as publishing it here...)

<comment><USER32> Surely you've heard of ConFest? Still going strong since the 70s. Started by Jim Cairns (the then ex-deputy to the ex-prime minister Gough Whitlam). The name is a portmanteau of 'conference festival'.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConFest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConFest)

<comment><USER32> > I just hadn't ever heard it referred to as "the predecessor to burning man".

But that it is :) It was a direct inspiration for burning man, and also another long running festival in Europe (the name escapes me).

> (And I've never been, Easter is BluesFest time for me...)

Are you talking about the one in Denniliquin that often coincides with ConFest? It's a very short drive away, and I recall bumping into a few curious folks making a detour after BluesFest.

<comment><USER33> Nah, Bluesfest in Byron Bay...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Man that's a bad way to do it, and it makes me really sad. Couchsurfing has been awesome but this is probably good for the community long-term since the motives of a large part of the users and CS where wildly misaligned after becoming a for-profit corp. With the nail in the coffin hopefully this will lead to a migration to some platform run by the community itself. Trustroots seems like the best existing option right now for future development.

<comment><AUTHOR> Trustroots has a nice map-based interface, but lacks references and meetups. BeWelcome is my preferred option, and is open-source and has excellent financial transparency.

<comment><USER28> I'm one of the developers working on Trustroots.

We're working on references :) I merged this PR yesterday [https://github.com/Trustroots/trustroots/pull/1413](https://github.com/Trustroots/trustroots/pull/1413), there is a bit more to work out for displaying them...

There is also a meetup feature already (see [https://ideas.trustroots.org/2017/08/21/meeting-people- now-o...](https://ideas.trustroots.org/2017/08/21/meeting-people-now-on- trustroots/)), it's a bit primitive right now, but it was a first iteration, and we've been discussing some next steps recently.

We are also open source! [https://github.com/trustroots/](https://github.com/trustroots/) (with a node + react stack)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's possible to export my data from CS. Would the Trustroots community be willing to have a CS data import option, for bringing in old CS references and friends?

<comment><USER28> You're welcome to join our team chat and we can discuss further (send me an email, address in profile, then I can invite you).

(most relevant, but dated, PR is [https://github.com/Trustroots/trustroots/pull/1086](https://github.com/Trustroots/trustroots/pull/1086))

(I also saw your comments on [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23219900](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23219900))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I ended up with two meth heads who sort of moved in and would not leave, they even tried to get me arrested for trespassing in my own home, supposedly on grounds of they were US citizens and I was not. Fortunately the cop that showed up spoke Italian and we sorted it out. It was weird. On the other hand, I have made three lifelong friends thanks to hospitality, so the balance is positive.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's about €2 a month, and I subscribed yesterday. It didn't occur to me until they prompted that CS must be doing pretty bad during the pandemic. I still open for Hangouts (I'm "stranded" in Vietnam where things are open back now), and the CS as a platform was fantastic to meet new people.

I think the €2 price is only for those who live in relatively richer countries. Here in Vietnam, my friends were not asked to pay, it's just me because my address was set to the Netherlands.

They even support PayPal payments, which I believe take ~€0.30 for the payment.

<comment><USER36> This is interesting, so it's based on address? I am also a Hangouts user and never did actual 'couchsurfing' so seeing it disappear esp. in countries like Vietnam or Thailand is a sad thought. Still, having this paywall slapped on for the majority of users means that a lot of 'casual users' like me who open the app occassionally will fall away, which then means far less people available on Hangouts.

Maybe someone else will step in and build a Hangout clone? Their app is a massive battery hog full of bugs, and I dread opening it every time I get a new message.

<comment><USER23> I think Couch Surfing (the activity) + hangouts work well because you can see how "cool" a person is based on their travel history.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Like the article says and as applies to almost all failed startups / products, it can all be traced back to bad management.

I've been a heavy CS user for over a decade, I've been to events at their (now defunct I suppose) office in SF, I met their CEO at the time (one of many) and even did a walk around the block chatting strategy with their VP of Product at the time.

After building lifelong relationships through the platform, and comparing my experience as a user with management's side of the story, it was clear to me that they had very little understanding of their userbase.

Couchsurfers are broke. By definition. Meeting people is a huge value add, and the longer you stay on the platform, the more you gravitate toward the "community spirit" and less "saving money" side of things. But you are kidding yourself if you think that first time CS users are on the platform for any other reason than squeezing a few more days out of a thin backpacking budget.

Not only are they broke, but even the community often has an anti-money ethos. Just look at the outrage (as the article points out) when they switched to a B corporation. And it makes sense -- taking an inherently capitalist product (lodging) and building a community to make it free creates a very specific narrative.

Therefore, the expectation that CS users, especially first-time, will pay even a dollar on the service is DOA. They need to make money (exactly how much is up for debate), but this isn't the way to do it.

But that doesn't mean there aren't any other choices! CS Event sponsorships, cross-product integration (language learning, travel deals FFS), other corporate sponsorships, a more Airbnb-like private experience (maybe the community would hate that too, who knows), partnerships with local tourism authorities, discounted tour / event packages... None of these were even close to tried.

I'm not at all advocating that Couchsurfing should have become Tripadvisor, but to barely even consider a few alternatives to nickel and diming a bunch of broke backpackers just shows that CS was on its way out long before COVID-19...

<comment><USER38> It's also possible that if the premise of your product is being free for broke people, there's just no path to profitability or even subsistance. You always anger your base, whatever you do. And then your platform becomes irrelevant as it fails to adapt due to... lack of money.

<comment><AUTHOR> I joined CS when I was broke, and such a site must stay free for newcomers.

Music can be obtained for free (whether recorded onto a cassette tape off MTV or downloaded). Despite that, I go out of my way to support my favourite bands. Sometimes quite literally flying to other countries to go to concerts. Now I have the money, I want to support those who showed kindness in the past by paying it forward.

BeWelcome's financial transparency is excellent, and I would happily buy a t-shirt from them, and I'm discussing with organisers of CS weekly meetups whether they'd be willing to rebrand to BW. If CS wants to save their platform, they can and should, but must act quickly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> An aside: Why does Medium add a login wall to some articles? Creating an account on a website to read somebody's blog post to me sounds... excessive.

<comment><USER40> We've been considering moving our labs' blog there (because less maintenance, higher visibility in tech academic communities) and have been wondering about this too. Can someone comment? Are they aiming towards raising a login wall for the whole platform?

<comment><USER41> You can make all your articles free/unpaywalled if you want. But then if a publication wants to add your article, they can't. Only paywalled articles can be added to publications.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I love CS! I have made tons of best friends, both male and female from around the world. I hosted a lot (max of upto 20 ppl one night in Mysore India!) and surfed a bit on my travels and best is when you get hosted by your ex surfers!! Monetizing couch surfing and providing the option of Joining via Facebook screwed up couch surfing according to me- the philosophy was lost. Earlier it was about travel, culture/ lifestyle experiencing platform, and had a word-of-mouth/kind of exclusive feel to it - you'd meet genuine people who took the effort to research online and find this forum. It was more genuine and with no expectations. I was very private about couch surfing, never posted stuff about it on my normal social media sites and never wanted to be famous for it. Soon after the Facebook link and those paid for profiles (green tick mark!! Ughh) all sorts of people ended up joining CS. In many countries, ppl are not aware of sensibilities and especially in a country like India, where women are stared at (even by my own friends! ) I had to keep a low profile. It was so so so hard to patiently educate friends, neighbours and family about basic concepts of travel, backpacking, alternative lifestyles.... Once Facebook got included, people found out and it became like a platform for users to brag about the girl they hosted and show off!! Yuck... BTW, I am an Indian guy telling you about hosting all the chillest open minded ppl in a small indian town! So trust me, it got BAD once non genuine ppl found out about CS! It's become commercial, about getting laid, and mostly all the cool vibe ppl are harder to filter through among the zillions of morons. It's become harder to connect now. I hope couch surfing survives, maybe make some whole sale changes.

Stay safe everyone. Have a good time! ~*~

</comment><comment><USER42> I love CS! I have made tons of best friends, both male and female from around the world. I hosted a lot (max of upto 20 ppl one night in Mysore India!) and surfed a bit on my travels and best is when you get hosted by your ex surfers!! Monetizing couch surfing and providing the option of Joining via Facebook screwed up couch surfing according to me- the philosophy was lost. Earlier it was about travel, culture/ lifestyle experiencing platform, and had a word-of-mouth/kind of exclusive feel to it - you'd meet genuine people who took the effort to research online and find this forum. It was more genuine and with no expectations. I was very private about couch surfing, never posted stuff about it on my normal social media sites and never wanted to be famous for it. Soon after the Facebook link and those paid for profiles (green tick mark!! Ughh) all sorts of people ended up joining CS. In many countries, ppl are not aware of sensibilities and especially in a country like India, where women are stared at (even by my own friends! ) I had to keep a low profile. It was so so so hard to patiently educate friends, neighbours and family about basic concepts of travel, backpacking, alternative lifestyles.... Once Facebook got included, people found out and it became like a platform for users to brag about the girl they hosted and show off!! Yuck... BTW, I am an Indian guy telling you about hosting all the chillest open minded ppl in a small indian town! So trust me, it got BAD once non genuine ppl found out about CS! It's become commercial, about getting laid, and mostly all the cool vibe ppl are harder to filter through among the zillions of morons. It's become harder to connect now. I hope couch surfing survives, maybe make some whole sale changes.

</comment><comment><USER43> [https://archive.fo/6xEPW](https://archive.fo/6xEPW)

The article makes this sound super shitty. What happens if you were traveling on May 14th in a country where you don't have cellphone service, trusting that you're going to use CouchSurfing to message your hosts to arrange to meet up when you arrive, and now you can't contact them any more? Either it's cough up the US$15 (assuming you even have a means of payment CouchSurfing accepts — I don't think they do M-PESA) or you're sleeping on the side of the road where your hitchhiking ride dropped you off. And US$15 is a fucking lot of money in some places.

I've hosted a bunch of people via Couchsurfing and also been hosted. Another alternative I've used is hospitalityclub.org, which seems to still be up. The article and other comments here mention BeWelcome, but I haven't tried it.

While I agree with comments that it shouldn't require hundreds of millions of dollars a year to run the site, and that we need to move community services like this onto decentralized systems, I think things like the Beaker Browser are not yet widespread enough. Communities like CouchSurfing where lots of people meet up in person and try new things might be the most fertile soil for something like that.

</comment><comment><USER44> Bro.. you gotta pay $15 a year. That's $1.25/month.

I would like to see you make a website like Couchsurfing that can operate for free forever.

Just pay the $buck 25 and keep using the site and go on with your life. This is not a Capitalist Conspiracy to rob you of your hard-earned $dollars

<comment><USER45> /s?

I almost wonder if you've ever met anyone in need. This brand of smug entitlement preceeds revolutions ...bro.

<comment><USER46> Nope, stop right now. Anyone in America can come up with $25 of disposable income a year.

<comment><USER47> There is a world outside USA also ;)

And you don't need money to travel.

<comment><USER48> You don't need money to travel beyond your front door/neighbourhood but come on, you need "some" money to travel. You can't travel without a penny in your pocket.

<comment><USER49> You can do pretty well with next to nothing. I spent three months hitchhiking and couchsurfing my way through the US and Canada, covering roughly 20,000 miles and staying with dozens of hosts. I started with $700 in my account, and still had a few hundred left by the end of the trip. Had I wanted to be more frugal, and not get 'local food' when someone suggested something especially good, I probably could have gotten by with less.

So it's true that you need something....but you can do it with little enough that $25 can be a significant part of your budget.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> My friends traveled half of the world thanks to CS. In developing counties it's usually richest people that host, so it's sometimes better than hotel, but often just tent in backyard (I think when no "hosts" in area)

</comment><comment><USER51> ...and do not forget about Pasporta Servo, which is a clear predecessor. The "pitch" for Couchsurfing may as well be "like Pasporta Servo, but without Esperanto".

<comment><USER52> Exactly! To explain Pasporta Servo to a friend (when I was "preaching" about Esperanto), I said the opposite: "It's Couchsurfing, but within the Esperanto community" – and also mentioned it being older than CS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> For hosts that provide their guests with a bed: Are bed-bugs a concern?

I can imagine bad hosting varied travellers who themselves may be sleeping in many different beds would be terrible for it.

<comment><USER54> This was literally the answer I expected when I saw the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I'm very saddened by the news.

To me couchsurfing was not only about hosting people to my place (which I hope I can continue doing after the pandemic) but also about their events.

The weeks I couldn't or didn't feel like hosting strangers to my place, I could still meet random foreigners in bars or outside.

My city had 3 weekly events in addition to random theme events, from board game nights and sport activities to cooking classes.

</comment><comment><USER56> I've had great experiences from couchsurfing. Hosting, surfing, and events. I've met several close friends through couchsurfing.

I've heard about the negative experiences people have had, but never from direct source, always someone heard about someone. I have no clue about the actual numbers.

The community died off with the mismanagement, but also shrunk from the rise of airbnb and meetup.

</comment><comment><USER57> Wonder how they survived for such a long time. I used to use it when I was a young adult with no family and little money, and stopped using it once I was not young any more, and had something to pay. My impression of my guests and hosts was that they were about the same kind of people as I was, so I'm not sure where they could ever get money from.

</comment><comment><USER58> I used to host couch surfers in Denver. Everyone I met was amazing. Had a couple from Jamaica stay a few days and taught me how to cook jerk chicken. Then I hosted a group of 5 from Australia which put me up when I visited them. I hope something replaces this site.

<comment><USER27> There's already alternatives, and they've been there for a while. The first treason to the community came from Casy Fenton who sold Couchsurfing some 10 years ago, even though he'd benefited from the volunteer work of many skilled members. That triggered the creation of BeWelcome. Some years later, BeWelcome was perceived as suffering from different issues that were preventing it from growing to its potential, and Trustroots was founded as well. Trustroots is a promising project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Couchsurfing died a long time ago. It used to be a good website until I guess it got sold.

</comment><comment><USER60> I understand the need for monetization since it's a large community and running it will have some costs but it's weird they couldn't partner with some travel equipment goods firms and be done with it.

</comment><comment><USER61> How could it be dead? Contrary to airbnb couchsurfing is not a company, it's a concept. And it has no running costs. People will just pause and get back to it later on.

<comment><USER62> Did you read the article?

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Would it be impossible to federate a homestay social network like Couchsurfing?

<comment><USER32> TIL, on another thread, that Trustroots is actually open source. I used it once 5 years ago, and I think it has a lot of potential.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Didn't it basically turn into a hookup app at some point?

<comment><USER65> it can be whatever you want it to be

i agree this become more common over the years, bit it's anyway easily avoidable through references or just by checking up sexuality, after all statistics are on your side, if you host person of same gender you are unlikely going into hook up

<comment><USER25> And even if one person is after the same gender, they wont just assume the other is without asking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Couchsurfing die at some point long ago. I forget exactly what happened, but globally all their volunteers per city left.

</comment><comment><USER67> Would Covid-19 have put an end to the travels of Paul Erdős? That would have been a tragedy.

</comment><comment><USER68> Can't read story about Couchsurfing paywall as the article is behind paywall ;)

<comment><USER65> Well folks, in these changed times it seems that the last artefacts of the old world have been firmly cemented in history, as Couchsurfing International Inc. decides to unilaterally charge its members, eroding away the last remnants of community spirit and hammering the final nail in the capitalist coffin it built for itself.

The fact Couchsurfing didn't warn or consult the community it hosts that the company was switching to a paid service, effective immediately as of 14th May 2020, only underlines the already poor track record of the management. Just in case you weren't sure how mainstream the service went, they've gone and removed all doubt.

In order to simply message old friends through the site, people who you warmly welcomed into your home, who kindly hosted you in a strange foreign land — or who perhaps changed your life — you must now pay a subscription fee. Users have essentially had their accounts frozen unless they pay the fee immediately.

The bosses of Couchsurfing know how much these old connections mean to some members, so in one final hustle have blocked messaging and even referencing, forcing those who have no other communication links to sign up for at least a month to speak to their friends, and hoping for a little bonus before the gentrified party is over for good.

It also means those that use the site only for hosting, in other words, offer their homes to others for free, have to pay the fee too.

This should kick out the remaining ethically-minded members. Leaving only noobs and those that want to save money when travelling to run the whole show. To be fair, $15 a year is not a lot to ask. But the way they asked shows everybody exactly where Couchsurfing stands.

<comment><USER65> Couchsurfing admits on its own blog that 4% of its users have contributed to the platform before the recent announcement. Considering that at time of writing it has well over 15 million users, at 4% that's at least $15 million dollars alone if everyone paid the verification fee only once (based on the only feasible way to contribute — the $25 verification fee per year). The management has probably worked out, while they sip lattes over Zoom, that even if there is a mass exodus and those without any principles at all remain, they will still miraculously break even.

In contrast, BeWelcome, a similar but much less popular platform, covered their finances with less than $10,000. BeWelcome is also completely transparent about their finances. Everyone who has used Couchsurfing knows that policy has slowly — although not imperceptibly — changed over the years. The sole aim since it changed from .org to .com has been to increase its membership and with that the hope that its members will pay to be verified under the controversial pretext that this makes the community safer. As a host, I can say this "safer" mantra is nonsense. It's the references I care about. It's what the community, not the bank, say about you that I care about.

Of course, Couchsurfing will never die for good. Its apparition will live on in the memories of original users, their profiles as tombstones representing an age — however brief — where three great things: the internet, travel and the human spirit combined to create an enviable community accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Considering the incredible stories, the global relationships and shared interests of locals, there is little doubt that Couchsurfing changed the world. Just how many people turned a new era in their lives through a friendship which can be traced back to Couchsurfing? For a while it flew in the face of the monetisation of simple travel, even as a for- profit company it triumphed as the lefty nemesis of Airbnb and the boutique hostel craze which swept the world; now rearranging its company structure to join them, having long replaced the wording of its most fundamental function from "community" to "profit". Over the last years, the true community still struggled on, creating events and meet-ups and ignoring the new requests from creepy men with empty profiles, while in the background $22.6 million was quietly being squandered to turn Couchsurfing into the next trendy startup venture.

Many community organisations (wikipedia.org for example) which respect their user-base — indeed realise they are their user-base — have resorted to reaching out to their members in search of aid when times got tough, financial or otherwise. Even some newspapers, dammit, score morally higher by asking for donations rather than ransoms.

Despite the recent drama, it's already clear from Couchsurfing's Privacy Policy that other money making outlets besides the ones they mention do exist:

"We may engage a third party data provider who may collect web log data from you or place or recognize a unique cookie on your browser" "We may also share aggregated or de-identified information, which cannot reasonably be used to identify you."

They may not admit directly selling your data. But Couchsurfing allows other companies to collect it in exchange for advertising space, which is paid for. The key words here are "engage", and "reasonably", which means if you are a large company and have the means to to re-identify data, then ta-da! — those trackers which monitor clicks and people you interact with, many who are now linked to profiles on Facebook, combine to make a neat little profile for you, and the travel-themed adverts stack up higher than the empty iPhone boxes at the Couchsurfing headquarters, which is now closed from Covid19, by the way.

But that probably didn't work out for them, which is why they are now allegedly scrapping the advertising plan. Returning instead in true business- means-business style to the community, which after being neglected for years, they have suddenly realised they depend on. And may also realise no longer exists.

But how can it be so bad? As of May 2020, it is one of the top 10,000 websites by Alexa rank, putting it in the top 0.001% of websites in the world — absolutely no mean feat. And certainly not in a position to be losing money. If Couchsurfing couldn't make it work with that amount of traffic, and with multiple multi-million dollar investments, while simultaneously ignoring its community and deleting its oldest and most valued members, it deserves to die. Nobody asked for all the fancy graphics and apps they made for us. People that are willing to sleep on a stranger's mattress can live with a few, em, bugs. If community powered websites like Reddit can survive, Couchsurfing could have survived too.

Everyone that has used the site, even until very recently, will be grateful that it existed; its simple empowerment of people allowed everyone to get more of the best thing about it: the people we meet. If anything, it remains as a bleak lesson on the poisonous nature of replacing strength of community with financial capital. Now it's time to shift away from what is essentially a company run by faceless people whose sole community is those in Silicon Valley; the only question remaining is, where do we go?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> no wonder why their app sucks.. free is never great. imagine if amazon or google never changed their business models, they would've never become the useful things they are today, would they? if you pay, you get a better service, period.

<comment><USER70> Do you though? Maybe there are users who only want the free product, to them couchsurfing for a fee is a worse model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Coachsurfing explained: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOUobuGaY7U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOUobuGaY7U)

</comment><comment><USER72> Never heard of Couchsurfing and I'm quite shocked this idea was able to captivate a considerable amount of people. It all seems terrible to me. Invite a bunch of strangers to hang out in your house? What a terrible idea! Sure, not all people are morons or psychos but there are such people out there. And only one is all it takes to end or completely ruin your life. Risk a life to be able to hear a bunch of bullshit what some idiot has to say is totally not worth it imo. If you want to talk to an idiot - you can find plenty of them on Facebook or Twitter. At least it's safe. And for the real life communications just hang out with your family, classmates, coworkers or even neighbors. There are a thousand people that you know and have some sort of relation to. If you wanna date - use tinder or something. Be careful out there, if not for yourself but for those, who love you and care for you!</comment>


Marissa Mayer at 2011 Harvey Mudd Commencement - <AUTHOR> http://youtu.be/uvDoBrdkd_c

<comment><USER2> Very cool! A perfect choice for this year, I think -- I'm delighted to see that this year's freshman class was 52% female, very much like the world itself!

HMC has come far from the early 90's when I was there -- it was still a male- dominated institution and certainly not the better for it.

Of course, it also cost literally half as much even after inflation adjustment, but that's another story...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I agree that is it good to see that the ratio is balancing but I worry about the cost of this. The applicant breakdown is not 52% female, so should the admitted students and accepted students be this high? I worry that since not many girls apply to a school like Harvey Mudd, they are having to lower the standards of acceptance in order to achieve this high female ratio.

<comment><USER3> They are. It's getting fairly ridiculous. Maria Klawe is, to put it lightly, a single-issue president. I'm glad she came (I did work with her husband my senior year and was grateful for the opportunity) but I'm getting sick of seeing bright kids accepted by Caltech and MIT but not Mudd...to tweak the gender ratio.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea it is interesting. I guess there is a chance that this works in the long term. In other words, with a 50% female ratio, more girls start applying to standards are able to be raised. And maybe even some smart guys come because of the favorable ratio. But I am really worried about the performance of the graduates in the short term.</comment></comment></comment>